Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Wandsworth Borough Council Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

North Lindsey Water Bill [Lords],

Torquay Corporation Bill [Lords],

Tynemouth Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

DYNAMITE THEFT, UDAIPUR.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the recent theft of 200 lbs. of dynamite from the Udaipur State Railway; and whether he will suggest to the Government of India that adequate steps shall be taken to guard explosives?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I have seen a Press report of this incident. The State authorities, not the Government of India, are primarily responsible for the necessary protective measures. I am sure that they fully realise the importance of ensuring that explosives do not fall into unlawful hands.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not a fact that a large quantity of dynamite was stolen from Dehra Dun public works department only a few months ago and that some of it was afterwards traced to Bengal terrorists?

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. and gallant Member's question was concerned with the affairs of an Indian State and I see
no reason, from the information at my disposal, to intervene.

Sir A. KNOX: Generally, as regards the Indian States and British India, could not special instructions be issued in order to protect this dynamite?

Sir S. HOARE: The Government of India and the Indian States are fully alive to the risks and are, in my view, taking every practicable precaution.

INDIAN TROOPS (TIBET).

Mr. MAXTON: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether troops belonging to the Indian array are stationed in Tibet; in what localities these troops are stationed; and what is their total number?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The only troops maintained by us in Tibet are the escorts to the British Trade Agents at Gyantse and Yatung. The total number is one British officer, three Indian officers and 90 Indian rank and file.

TEXTILE INDUSTRY (STRIKE).

Mr. MAXTON: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will give the House information regarding the strike among the textile workers in India; in how many towns the textile workers have struck; whether workers in other industries have declared a sympathetic strike; whether he is aware that the authorities have fired on the strikers on several occasions in Bombay and Delhi; whether firing has been resorted to in other towns; whether he is aware that it has been decided to drastically cut the wages of textile workers even in mills where large profits are being made, and that the strikers are demanding a minimum wage of 15s. a week; and, seeing that 14 leading trade unionists have been arrested, will he state what is the charge against them?

Mr. BUTLER: There have been strikes of textile workers in Bombay, Delhi and Sholapur. Except in Bombay there has been a general resumption of work. I have not heard of sympathetic strikes in other industries. The police in Bombay have fired in self-defence on four occasions, but there have been no fatal injuries. I have received no reports of firing elsewhere. As regards the other points in the question I would refer the
hon. Member to the replies given on the 30th April and the 10th May to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) and to the communiques issued by the Government of Bombay which have been published in the Press.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (MIXED COURTS).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that all British judges who served in the native courts of Egypt since the British occupation always heard pleadings and delivered judgments in Arabic, thereby respecting the native language and customs; and whether His Majesty's Government will set an example to the other Powers by making a working knowledge of Arabic a condition in the future appointment of British judges in the mixed courts?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I am aware that the charter of the Egyptian native courts lays down that Arabic is the judicial language. It was therefore natural that during the period when British judges sat in those courts they should have been acquainted with Arabic. The charter of the mixed courts, on the other hand, provides that Arabic, English, French and Italian are the judicial languages to be used; there is therefore no valid reason for the adoption of the hon. Member's suggestion, which would considerably restrict the choice of candidates. But a knowledge of Arabic is naturally and properly a high qualification for service in any capacity under the Egyptian Government.

Mr. DAVIES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would tend to create a better feeling in Egypt, if these judges were conversant with the language of the country in which they are engaged?

Sir J. SIMON: The charter names four languages and the ideal would be that every judge should be perfectly familiar with all four. That is setting a rather high standard. We do our best to be fair.

Mr. HANNON: Would it not be better, in the interests of peace and concord in Egypt, if questions of this nature were not put on the Order Paper at all?

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY (STRAITS CONVENTION).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any communications regarding the desire of the Turkish Government for a modification of the Straits Convention of 1923; and what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government on this matter?

Captain CUNNINGHAM - REID: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been received from the Turkish Government regarding the demilitarised zone adjoining the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus; and what attitude he has adopted in this matter?

Sir J. SIMON: The question of the possible modification of certain provisions of the Lausanne peace settlement, dealing with the demilitarised zones in the Straits, was tentatively raised over a year ago by the Turkish delegate before the General Commission of the Disarmament Conference at Geneva. It has not formed the subject of specific representations to His Majesty's Government. The question having, however, more than once been alluded to by Turkish Ministers in conversation, I took a recent opportunity of mentioning it to the Turkish Sinister for Foreign Affairs at Geneva. His Excellency then assured me that in present circumstances the Turkish Government did not propose to pursue the matter. In these circumstances the question of the attitude of His Majesty's Government no longer arises.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (BRITISH SUBJECTS' CLAIMS).

Mr. CADOGAN: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress has been made in pressing the claims of British subjects against the Spanish Government for damages and loss sustained during the riots at Malaga and elsewhere; and whether he will urge upon the Spanish authorities the need for settlement of these claims which have been outstanding for so long?

Sir J. SIMON: Further representations have been made since the date of the reply returned on this subject on 9th November last. While it has not been possible to induce the Spanish Government to accept liability, my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that no
opportunity to bring about a settlement of these claims will be overlooked. I may mention that claims by other Governments on behalf of their nationals in respect of losses incurred during the riots in question are also outstanding.

Mr. CADOGAN: In view of the fact that much the same answer has been given to this question for the last two years, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the matter can be brought to a definite issue within a reasonable space of time?

Sir J. SIMON: We are, naturally, anxious not only to bring it to a definite conclusion, but to bring it to a favourable conclusion. It is in the effort to get a favourable conclusion that some delay is involved.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA).

Sir A. KNOX: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Third International of Moscow is at present carrying on seditious propaganda among the armed forces of the Crown; what information is in the possession of his Department on this matter; and what action is it proposed to take?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, it would not be in the public interest to publish such information as is available. With regard to the third part action can only be taken when there is sufficient evidence to show that a breach of the law has taken place.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not the case that the learned Attorney-General said the other day that these documents are in daily circulation among the troops in this country; and surely the Foreign Office at any rate ought to take action towards the Government of Russia without whose connivance the Comintern could not exist for a day?

Mr. COOPER: As the Attorney-General explained at the time, it is hoped that the Bill which he is at present piloting through Committee will
enable the authorities to deal more effectively with people who are guilty of this offence.

Sir A. KNOX: Would it not be more to the point to attack this ulcer at its source and to attack the Comintern which is spreading this propaganda?

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN AND CHINA.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the claim of Japan to control the policy of China in respect of all political questions is admitted by His Majesty's Government?

Sir J. SIMON: I am not aware that the Japanese Government make any such claim as is suggested in the question. The hon. Member presumably has in mind the declaration made by a spokesman of the Japanese Ministry for Foreign Affairs on the 17th April last. I would draw his attention to the statement on the subject which I made in the House on 30th April in answer to questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Sir H. Cayzer) and the Member for South Shields (Mr. H. Johnstone).

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (ARMAMENTS).

Mr. MABANE: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the official declaration by Marshal Pétain to the effect that Germany is now rearmed to the level of 1914; and whether His Majesty's Government have any information on this subject?

Sir J. SIMON: I understand from the Press that on the 6th June Marshal Pétain made a statement to the Army Commission of the Chamber of Deputies on the subject of German armaments. The proceedings of the Commission are secret and I have no official information as regards the details of the Marshal's statement. According to the official communiqué, as reproduced in the British Press, the Marshal drew attention to the strength of the para-military organisations, to the existence of a German military air force, and to the intensive manufacture of arms.

Mr. MABANE: In view of the anxiety in this country, would it be possible for the Government to issue a statement showing the extent to which, in their opinion, Germany has observed the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles or, on the other hand, the extent to which those provisions are not being observed in this connection?

Sir J. SIMON: That is a matter which would need consideration. I could not deal with it in answer to a supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY, AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY (AGREEMENTS).

Mr. MABANE: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now any information to give the House with regard to the economic arrangements made between Italy, Austria and Hungary consequent upon the signature of the Rome Protocol; and what effect these arrangements have upon our economic position in Central Europe?

Sir J. SIMON: I understand that agreements between Italy and Austria and Italy and Hungary respectively were signed at Rome on the 14th May. Pending the ratification and publication of these agreements, I am unable to reply to the last part of my hon. Friend's question, but the effect of these agreements on the trade of this country will naturally be watched with close attention by His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WARBLE-FLY PEST.

Mr. BURNETT: 15.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he proposes to take any steps to deal with the warble-fly pest among cattle?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): During the warble seasons 1930–1932, demonstrations in the treatment of infested cattle were organised in many counties in England and Wales by the local authorities and a committee of the Leathersellers' Company, whose expenditure for this purpose was partly met by a grant from the Empire Marketing Board. Similar demonstrations were carried out in Scotland. The efficacy of treatment was adequately shown. An advisory
leaflet explaining the life history of the parasite and methods of control is published by the Ministry, and I am in consultation with the National Farmers' Unions of England and Scotland, and with the County Councils' Association, as to the practicability of applying general measures against the pest.

POULTRY INDUSTRY.

Sir THOMAS ROSBOTHAM: 16.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has considered the Resolutions, copies of which were sent to him, passed by a meeting of 2,000 poultry keepers in Lancashire, calling attention to the serious position of those engaged in that branch of agriculture; and what action he proposes to take to avert a disaster to the poultry industry?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have examined carefully the Resolutions referred to by my hon. Friend. As regards the quantitative regulation of imports of eggs in shell, I would refer to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam) on 4th June, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend, dealing with the emergency steps which the Government has taken to hold the import situation for the time being. As regards the suggested increased Customs duties, I would remind my hon. Friend that the statutory procedure provides for consideration of these matters in the first instance by the Import Duties Advisory Committee. The Resolutions generally will receive my careful consideration, but my hon. Friend will be aware that the whole question of the future organisation of the egg and poultry industry in England and Wales is at present being considered by a Reorganisation Commission, and that a similar inquiry is in progress in Scotland. In the meantime, as I have indicated, action with regard to imports of eggs in shell has already been taken.

Mr. LAMBERT: Has the attention of the Import Duties Advisory Committee been directed to this matter?

Mr. ELLIOT: I could not answer that question without notice.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Surely, if there is one thing we should do, it is to produce our own eggs; there should not be any foreign eggs of any sort imported?

Sir T. ROSBOTHAM: Will my right hon. Friend anticipate the report of the Committee by prohibiting the importation of all liquid eggs?

Mr. ELLIOT: I could not give an adequate reply to that question at Question Time.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN LEASES, REGENT STREET (GROUND RENTS).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 17.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will inform the House as to the dates of the building agreements relating to the recently rebuilt properties in Regent

Premises.
Date of Building Agreement.
Area in sq. ft.
Ground Rent per sq. foot.






£
s.
d.


1 and 3, Regent Street (Corner Site)
Lower Regent Street.
10th November, 1913
5,670
0
10
0


13, Regent Street
22nd December, 1921
1,402
1
0
0


* Plaza Theatre, Regent Street (Corner Site).
21st August, 1922
11,770
1
5
6


27, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site)
9th November, 1927
3,371
1
14
0


29 and 31, Regent Street
25th October, 1927
1,958
1
12
0


33–37, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site).
1st April, 1927
1,867
1
16
0


49–63, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site)
…
12th December, 1918
14,961
1
4
7


83–89, Regent Street, etc.
…
10th July, 1924
4,382
1
7
7


91, Regent Street, etc.
…
28th June, 1924
2,022
1
8
8


*93–97, Regent Street, etc.
…
24th September, 1924
4,129
1
7
7


99 and 101, Regent Street, etc.
…
14th August, 1924
5,072
1
5
2¾


103 and 105, Regent Street
…
16th October, 1924
3,450
1
9
8¾


107, Regent Street
…
29th October, 1924
1,453
1
11
7¾


109–113, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site)
…
19th January, 1925
3,725
1
13
7


*115, Regent Street, etc. (Part of) (Corner Site).
22nd March, 1923
2,570
1
17
0


do. (Remainder)
…
8th September, 1924
600
1
13
0


117–121, Regent Street
…
25th August, 1924
1,286
1
10
0


121A and 123, Regent Street
…
23rd July, 1924
2,167
1
15
2¾


125, Regent Street
…
23rd July, 1924
618
1
10
0


127 and 131, Regent Street (Corner Site)
…
16th December, 1924
2,360
1
11
4¼


137–141, Regent Street
…
9th August, 1923
2,656
1
9
4


143–147, Regent Street, etc.
…
16th June, 1924
2,937
1
10
0


149 and 151, Regent Street
…
2nd April, 1924
2,311
1
5
11½


153 and 155, Regent Street
…
23rd February, 1920
2,240
0
17
10


157–161, Regent Street
…
2nd February, 1920
2,800
0
17
10


163 and 165, Regent Street, etc.
…
1st August, 1922
2,183
1
6
0


167, Regent Street (Corner Site)
…
3rd August, 1922
740
1
7
0


169–173, Regent Street (Corner Site)
…
23rd August, 1923
3,134
1
9
4


175, Regent Street
…
20th November, 1924
1,373
1
10
0


177–183, Regent Street
…
31st December, 1925
3,863
1
8
5


185, Regent Street
…
4th January, 1923
1,444
1
6
0


187, Regent Street
…
10th October, 1922
1,080
1
6
0


189 and 191, Regent Street
…
4th July, 1922
2,729
1
2
9


199 and 201, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site)
20th November, 1922
2,575
1
12
0


203, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site)
…
5th September, 1922
2,070
1
5
5


206, Regent Street
…
19th September, 1922
1,007
1
3
10


207 and 209, Regent Street, etc.
…
6th March, 1925
960
1
7
1


211 and 213, Regent Street
…
26th February, 1913
2,590

9
7½


215–221, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site)
…
28th July, 1922
3,761
1
5
6


223, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site)
…
31st January, 1922
1,513
1
5
0

Street; the approximate area of the sites comprised in these agreements; and the rate per foot charged as ground rent in each case?

Mr. ELLIOT: As the answer involves a long tabular statement, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Can my right hon. Friend give Regent Street as an exhibition of the beneficial results of the nationalisation of land, in view of the enormous rents exacted from these people?

Following is the answer:

Premises.
Date of Building Agreement.
Area in sq. ft.
Ground Rent per sq. foot.






£
s.
d.


225, Regent Street
…
22nd March, 1922
822
1
4
0


227, Regent Street (Comer Site)
…
26th April, 1923
1,492
1
10
0


229–233, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site)
…
10th October, 1922
4,478
1
5
2


243 and 245 (formerly 235), Regent Street
…
6th October, 1922
2,195
1
3
8


247 (formerly 237), Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site).
6th October, 1922
1,025
1
7
0


249 (formerly 239 and 241), Regent Street (Corner Site).
14th November, 1916
2,106

16
0


251–259 (formerly 243–253), Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site).
11th March, 1915
8,154

16
5


261, 263, Regent Street, etc. (Part of) (Corner Site).
Upper Regent Street
19th May, 1916
2,499

16
6


261, 263, Regent Street, etc. Remainder).
7th June, 1921
1,174
1
5
0


265–271, Regent Street (Corner Site)
Upper Regent Street
15th February, 1922
3,830
1
5
0


273–277, Regent Street (Corner Site)
5th December, 1925
1,955
1
10
0


279–283, Regent Street
24th December, 1925
2,415
1
8
0


285–287, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Street.)
31st December, 1925
1,694
1
10
0


14, Regent Street (Corner Site)
Lower Regent Street
8th September, 1922
5,090
1
3
7


16, Regent Street
21st April, 1927
8,025
1
0
7½


18 and 20, Regent Street, etc.
27th May, 1929
11,522
1
0
9


24–36, Regent Street (Corner Site)*
24th July, 1917
6,950
1
6
0


50 and 52, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site)
…
1st November, 1924
5,905
1
13
6¼


54–62, Regent Street, etc.
…
12th January, 1927
1,850
1
11
6


64 and 66, Regent Street
…
25th July, 1923
2,788
1
9
9


68–72, Regent Street
…
25th July, 1923
2,150
1
10
0


74–78, Regent Street, etc.
…
8th December, 1924
4,706
1
7
6½


80 and 82, Regent Street, etc.
…
21st February, 1925
8,057
1
6
9½


84 and 86, Regent Street, etc.
…
5th January, 1925
9,466
1
7
3


88, Regent Street, etc.
…
14th March, 1929
4,816
0
19
3½


90, Regent Street, etc.
…
9th October, 1923
2,925
1
5
11


92, Regent Street, etc.
…
20th October, 1923
2,652
1
6
4


94–98, Regent Street, etc.
…
7th November, 1923
4,375
1
6
11


100, Regent Street (Corner Site)
…
24th March, 1923
2,987
1
10
0


106–112, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site)
…
15th January, 1926
8,856
1
8
0


114, 116, Regent Street, etc.
…
25th July, 1911
4,110
0
10
11


118, 120, Regent Street, etc.
…
25th July, 1911
3,662
0
11
4¾


122, Regent Street
…
29th September, 1924
1,200
1
9
10


124, Regent Street
…
29th September, 1924
1,256
1
9
2


126–130, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site)
…
31st December, 1925
6,342
1
5
4½


132–136, Regent Street, etc. (Part) (Corner Site).
7th May, 1923
2,232
1
8
0


132–136, Regent Street, etc. (Remainder)
…
7th May, 1923
2,156
1
9
0


138–148, Regent Street, etc.
…
7th May, 1923
10,798
1
6
7¼


150, Regent Street
…
7th May, 1923
2,220
1
7
11


152–154, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site)
…
7th June, 1923
2,705
1
8
2½


160–170, Regent Street, etc.
…
2nd September, 1912
16,348
0
10
0


172, Regent Street
…
31st December, 1914
1,658
0
13
10


174, Regent Street
…
9th October, 1923
1,025
1
10
0


176, Regent Street
…
27th September, 1923
1,025
1
10
0


178, Regent Street
…
19th January, 1921
1,180
1
3
0


188–190, Regent Street, etc.
…
30th June, 1919
4,084
0
15
2


192–196, Regent Street, etc.
…
14th December, 1909
8,220
0
10
2


198, Regent Street
…
10th November, 1920
1,266
1
3
0


200, 202, Regent Street, etc.
…
10th November. 1920
4,030
0
18
6¾


204, 206, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site)
…
22nd February, 1921
4,165
1
0
8


208–222, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site)
…
29th September, 1913
12,878
0
14
2


224–244, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site)
…
27th April, 1916
20,016
0
12
9


246, Regent Street (Corner Site)
…
1st July, 1915
1,630
0
15
1


248 250, Regent Street, etc.
…
1st July, 1915
4,275
0
11
10


252–260, Regent Street, etc.
…
31st July, 1924
15,590
1
7
4


264. Regent Street
…
21st January, 1914
1,365
0
14
0


266–270, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site)
…
3rd August, 1911
2,551
0
15
2

Premises.
Date of Building Agreement.
Area in sq. ft.
Ground Rent per sq. ft.






£
s.
d.


272–286, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site).
Upper Regent Street
15th September, 1915
7,977
0
11
8½


288–292, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site).
27th January, 1915
3,075
0
8
0


294–300, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site).
26th January, 1922
5,878
0
18
1


302 and 304, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site).
7th April, 1922
3,852
0
14
0


306 and 308, Regent Street
25th July. 1921
2,378
0
11
0


310 and 312, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site).
9th November, 1921
2,638
0
12
0


314, 316, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site).*
18th December, 1922
7,100
0
14
6


318, 322, Regent Street
22nd November, 1923
2,464
0
16
3


324, 326, Regent Street, etc. (Corner Site).
6th April, 1922
3,768
0
9
0


NOTE.— It should be remembered that the eases differ, not only as regards total area and date of Agreement, but also as regards position in the street and the proportion of back land to frontage.


In the cases marked * the lettings were by public tender. In the other cases they were by private treaty.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE RENTALS.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 20.
asked the Postmaster-General what the rental charges will be under the proposed new scale for a doctor's telephone in a country district in Shetland, now charged at £12 per annum?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): I understand the hon. Member to refer to a subscriber who does not come within the ordinary tariff conditions but pays a specially assessed rental. The question whether any rental reduction can be made in such cases is under consideration.

MOTOR VEHICLES.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 22.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in the interests of all road users, he will give instructions that the side and tail lamps of new Post Office motor vehicles shall be fixed at a height not more than four feet above road level?

Sir K. WOOD: The position of the side and tail lamps of motor mail vehicles has been standardised for many years as being the most suitable for working conditions. If, however, my hon. Friend has any evidence that it involves risk, I shall be pleased to inquire into the matter.

Sir G. FOX: 23.
asked the Postmaster-General the expected average life of the latest postal vans purchased by his Department?

Sir K. WOOD: The expected average life is five years for the smallest type of van, and six years for the larger types.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

GORELL COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Mr. SIMMONDS: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the date of publication of the Report of the Gorell Committee on Civil Aviation?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): My Noble Friend hopes that this report will be published about the end of the present month. It will be presented to Parliament as a Command Paper.

AIR SERVICES (HULL AND NORTH SEA).

Mr. SIMMONDS: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if the Air Ministry have considered the question of supporting the operation by a British aircraft operating company of the air service from Hull across the North Sea, and what decision has been reached?

Sir P. SASSOON: No proposals for the operation of such a service by a British
undertaking have been received by the Air Ministry; if received, they would be carefully considered.

BEACON, CROYDON.

Mr. SIMMONDS: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when he first received a request from an aircraft operating company for the removal or reduction in height of the wireless pylon at Croydon aerodrome; and what action was subsequently taken by the Air Ministry?

Sir P. SASSOON: A representation that the height and position of this beacon constituted a danger to aircraft was first received in a letter from an operating company dated 31st October last. Preliminary inquiries and discussions were opened at once, and a conference on the whole question of the use of the beacon was held in January, attended by representatives of all the operating companies useing the airport. Certain very complex technical questions remained for fuller examination, but in view of the recent most regrettable accident, the decision has now been taken that the beacon should be reduced in height forthwith, even although this entails the abandonment of its possible use for long-range navigation.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Is it not the fact that after that conference in January the Air Ministry promised that the beacon would forthwith be reduced in height?

Sir P. SASSOON: No, I do not think so. My hon. Friend will remember that this beacon was put up as a factor of safety in flying.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is there any need for a pylon at all? Surely a strong ground light is all that is needed to ensure the safety of aeroplanes.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SPAIN.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the unsatisfactory conditions in which British trade is conducted with Spain; will he now request the Spanish Government to
cancel the Anglo-Spanish Treaty of 1922, so that it may be replaced with a new commercial agreement more consonant with British requirements or, alternatively, will he ask the Spanish Government to accept a proposal for an Anglo-Spanish exchange clearing for the purpose of arriving at an equilibrium in purchases by Spain of British goods in comparison with purchases by Britain of Spanish productions?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am unable to add to the replies which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Members for Salford South (Mr. Stourton) and the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Pike) on the 5th June.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say how long this very unsatisfactory state of things is going to continue?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The question of commercial negotiations with Spain is under consideration, but I would point out in the meantime that our exports to Spain were maintained during the first quarter of this year as compared with the same period of last year.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the Spanish Treaty of 1922 is now regarded by all exporters as an entire failure?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have pointed out that exports in fact have been maintained, but Spanish imports, on the other hand, have dropped off slightly.

EDIBLE FATS (IMPORTS).

Mr. BURNETT: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount and value of edible fats imported into this country for the years 1931, 1932 and 1933?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE: The precise information desired is not available, as the trade returns of this country do not provide for the complete separation of edible fats from edible oils. I am, however, circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT such information as is available.

Following is the information:

The following table shows the quantity and declared value of the undermentioned commodities imported into the United Kingdom during the years 1931, 1932 and 1833.


Description.
Quantity.
Declared Value.


1931.
1932.
1933.
1931.
1932.
1933



Cwts.
Cwts.
Cwts.
£
£
£


Butter
8,060,068
8,364,367
8,831,654
46,297,585
41,055,142
34,340,812


Margarine
692,951
92,411
32,527
1,924,024
199,165
52,296


Cocoa Butter
57,554
61,972
82,613
244,261
233,408
281,823


Oils and fats, refined, edible:


Animal (including fish):
Tons.
Tons.
Tons.





Lard
127,435
122,174
144,275
5,910,839
4,812,356
4,953,100


Oleo margarine and oleo oil and refined tallow.
31,738
29,860
32,920
941,042
914,722
888,161


Other sorts
4,766*
11,451
8,723
162,393*
330,799
231,990


Vegetable, other than essential.
32,184†
22,551
24,934
l,274,641t
859,763
826,679


Lard, imitation
3,432
1,364
810
148,5 6
48,510
25,363


Mixtures of animal and vegetable, other than essential, not elsewhere specified.
‡
100
45
‡
4,894
1,637


* Excluding fish (and marine animal) oils, etc., in this year.


† Excluding soya bean oil in this year.


‡ Not separately recorded prior to 1932.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY.

Mr. PETHERICK (for Mr. HER-BERT WILLIAMS): 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that of the nett tonnage of ships with cargoes entering and clearing United Kingdom ports from or to foreign countries the proportion which was British fell from 56 per cent. in 1913 to 49 per cent. in 1933; and under these circumstances what steps he proposes to take to defend British shipping engaged in the United Kingdom in foreign trade?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am aware of the facts stated in the first part of the question; as regards the second part, I cannot anticipate the statement which my right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position soon to make in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — HERRING FISHING INDUSTRY (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE).

Sir MURDOCH MCKENZIE WOOD: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make any statement with regard to the proposals recently submitted by the herring-fishing industry for
the grant of temporary assistance by the Government?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): Yes, Sir. I met representatives of the herring producers' associations on Friday, when agreement was reached on schemes by which, subject to the approval of Parliament, funds will be provided up to a limit of £50,000 for the purpose of loans at 3 per cent. repayable in three years for the purchase of nets, and in addition the Government will undertake to meet any amount by which the boat's share of the net earnings at the end of the season falls short of £50 or the actual expenditure on fitting out, whichever is less. The undertaking will apply to Scottish or English drifters of over 65 feet in length which engage in the summer herring fishing from ports in Scotland and on the North East Coast of England and are included in a list containing not more than 1,000 vessels submitted by the producers' associations to the Fishery Departments not later than 14th July. The Government undertaking will only operate if the number of drifters of the type specified which have commenced fishing on or before 7th July
is under 1,000. I desire to emphasise this condition. Supplementary Estimates for the provision of the necessary funds will be submitted to the House and full particulars of the schemes will be published immediately.

Sir M. WOOD: Are we to understand that if the number of boats slightly exceeds 1,000, the whole liability of the Government under the second heading falls to the ground?

Sir G. COLLINS: That is a hypothetical question. I made it very clear to the members of the herring producers' associations that the Government undertaking was only given on the understanding that the number would not exceed 1,000.

Sir M. WOOD: Does that mean that a boat that proceeds to sea now does not know whether in fact eventually there will be any undertaking by the Government at all?

Sir G. COLLINS: No. All the boats that have gone to sea under this agreement will be put on this list.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Is the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal expected to be defrayed by the £50,000, or is it in addition?

Sir G. COLLINS: I purposely used the words "in addition."

Sir M. WOOD: When is this matter likely to be submitted to the House?

Sir G. COLLINS: Until I receive particulars of the money required, it would not be in keeping with the practice of Parliament to submit Estimates. Full particulars in detail will be published at the very earliest moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — STONE QUARRY EXPLOSION (BARON CROSS, STAINTON).

Mr. THORNE: 33.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has received a report from his inspector in connection with the explosion that occurred at the Cumberland County Council's stone quarry at Baron Cross, Stainton, near Penrith, at which five men were injured; if he can state the cause of the explosion; and whether the men are seriously injured?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: My hon. Friend has received a report on this acci-
dent, from which it appears that on 1st June five shot holes were fired in the quarry face to blast down the stone. Three days later, while the shot firer and another workman were removing the loose stones with crow bars, an explosion occurred at one of the holes. The shot firer was severely injured and, unfortunately, has since died in hospital; out of a number of men working on the quarry floor two were severely injured, and two others were slightly injured. It is evident that the explosion was caused by some explosive remaining in one of the shot holes, and it is probable that the shot firer accidentally struck or disturbed it with his crow bar and caused it to explode.

Oral Answers to Questions — BARN OWLS.

Sir W. DAVISON: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the barn owls of Great Britain, which are of great service to farmers in destroying vermin, are gradually becoming extinct; and whether he will take steps to protect these birds from destruction?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): No representations on the subject have been made to me, and I have no power to make Orders under the Wild Birds Protection Acts except on the application of the councils of counties and county boroughs. Under the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880, the owl is protected during the period 1st March–1st August, and Orders extending this protection to the whole of the year and protecting the eggs of the bird are in force in the majority of counties and county boroughs in England and Wales. The prohibition imposed by the Act and by the Orders applies to owners and occupiers of land as well as to the general public.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can my right hon. Friend say what steps will have to be taken to place these beautiful birds in the same category as green plovers, which are now generally protected throughout the country?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot say. I think the great majority of counties and county boroughs have already protected them for the full year. I do not know whether anything further can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — RODEO CONTEST, WHITE CITY.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 37.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied from reports received of the initial performances of the rodeo at the White City that no action is called for on the part of his Department?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that a report of the opening performance has been submitted to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and is now under consideration.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an otherwise thoroughly sporting performance was slightly impaired by two steers galloping into a gate and hurting themselves, and, in view of the fact that the performances would not be materially affected by having this gate open instead of shut, will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the management to this point?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have not yet had the opportunity of reading the report of the Commissioner; when I have I will consider that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH UNION OF FASCISTS.

Mr. THORNE: 38.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the British Union of Fascists have organised an air defence force and an armoured-car section; and if he intends taking action in the matter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir, I am not aware that the British Union of Fascists have organised an Air defence force, though I am aware that in May last a flying meeting was held in Gloucestershire at which a number of Fascists attended. I should be glad to consider any information in the possession of the hon. Member. As regards the use of armoured cars, I am informed that the four vehicles in question are in no way armoured but are ordinary commercial vehicles with wire protection at the windows which are used to convey members of the organisation to and from meetings.

Mr. THORNE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has read the supplementary question which I put to him the other day? If not, I will read some of it——

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow the hon. Member to do that now.

Mr. THORNE: Well, then, may I ask the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a statement made last year by the uncrowned king of the Fascist movement, that he is prepared to meet the situation with machine guns and that his party is organised for a struggle with violence? I want to ask the Home Secretary why, if that statement is in the hands of the chief of police, action was not taken against him then? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that when the hon. Member who is now talking made a less violent speech in Trafalgar Square, he was pinched?

Sir J. GILMOUR: We have all the information available, but I invite the hon. Gentleman to give me any further information.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Is it not a fact that the air defence force referred to is a flying club on all fours with other flying clubs in this country?

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 39.
asked the Home Secretary the number of persons injured at the Fascist meeting at Olympia on the 7th June?

Mr. THORNE: 40.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from the Commissioner of Police in connection with the serious disturbances at the Fascist meeting at Olympia no Thursday night, 7th June; the number of persons injured and the number taken to hospital for treatment; whether he has been able to find out the fundamental aims and objects of this organisation; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: 42.
asked the Home Secretary how many baton charges were made by the police outside Olympia on Thursday night the 7th instant; how many police were injured in the disturbances; and why it was considered necessary to employ 1,000 police in this neighbourhood?

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 43.
asked the Home Secretary what steps are now proposed to prevent any further outbreak of Blackshirt brutality?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if I make a general statement at the end of Questions in reply to these questions.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that unnecessary violence such as that shown by persons wearing political uniforms at Olympia on 7th June will inevitably provoke retaliation, the Government will give an early date for the discussion of measures to avert this menace to public order and political good will?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Perhaps my hon. Friend would await the statement to be made after Questions by the Home Secretary, but, as regards time, I would point out that the matter could be raised on the appropriate Vote on an allotted Supply Day.

At the end of Questions:

Sir J. GILMOUR: Early in May it was announced that a meeting organised by the British Union of Fascists would be held at Olympia on the 7th instant and would be addressed by Sir Oswald Mosley. The Commissioner of Police subsequently received information that the Communist party of Great Britain proposed to make a counter demonstration against this meeting, the counter demonstration to take the form of an organised opposition inside Olympia, and a monster mass demonstration outside Olympia. In the light of this information it became the duty of the Commissioner to make adequate arrangements for carrying out the responsibilities that fall on the police on occasions of this character.
The question of the extent of the responsibility of the police for preserving order at public meetings was fully considered by a Departmental Committee appointed by one of my predecessors, the right hon. Herbert Gladstone, in 1909, and the present policy is based on the recommendations of that Committee. In accordance with that policy, it is no part of the ordinary duty of the police to deal with interrupters at public meetings held on private premises, and they have no legal authority to enter the premises except by leave of the occupier or the promoters of the meeting or when they have good reason to believe that a breach of the peace is being committed. Nor again is it any part of the duty of the police to act as stewards at a meeting, but the police have been advised by the Home Office that, on extraordinary occasions when there is a definite reason to
apprehend disturbance of a serious character, they should make arrangements for policing the meeting inside as well as outside if they are asked to do so by the persons responsible for convening the meeting.
On the present occasion, the British Union of Fascists informed the Commissioner that the Fascists did not require the assistance of the police inside the building and at no stage was any request made for police to enter the meeting. On one occasion, however, a small party of uniformed police entered the precincts of Olympia, but not the meeting itself, on being informed that there was a man who required attention.
The Commissioner took the necessary steps for controlling traffic and the crowd in the vicinity of Olympia before and during the meeting, and he arranged for a number of both foot and mounted police to be kept ready in reserve. In all, about 760 police were detailed for these purposes, and in view of what took place at Olympia, I think that the House will agree that the precautions which the Commissioner deemed it necessary to take were in no sense excessive.
As regards the disturbance inside Olympia, I have already explained that the police were not called into the meeting, and I have nothing to add to the very full accounts which have already appeared in the Press. Allegations have been made by responsible eye-witnesses that assaults were committed by the Fascist stewards in ejecting interrupters, but, as the law does not allow undue violence to be used and as the question whether unnecessary force was used may come before the courts, it would not be proper for me to make any comment on these allegations. I think, however, I ought to point out that, hitherto, the advice as regards police action has been based on the assumption that the stewards of a meeting in dealing with interrupters will act without undue violence and will themselves avoid illegal acts. If this assumption should be found to be unwarranted as regards meetings promoted by any particular organisation, the whole policy of police action inside such public meetings will have to be reviewed.
As regards what took place outside Olympia, the Commissioner informs me that, while the meeting was assembling,
considerable numbers of persons collected outside the building and that it was necessary to clear the approaches to the hall. Throughout the duration of the meeting, crowds remained in the roads adjacent to Olympia, and at times became disorderly. During the course of the evening 23 persons were arrested by the police on charges of assault, obstructing the police, and using insulting words and behaviour, but I am informed that there were no baton charges by the foot police, though on one occasion a party of four mounted police drew their truncheons but did not use them. During the disturbances outside Olympia two constables and one woman were assaulted in the street and received slight injuries. It is know that a number of persons were injured inside the meeting, but the police are not aware of the number of persons so injured, though 10 persons are known to have received treatment at neighbouring hospitals for injuries believed to have been sustained during the disturbances inside Olympia. Order was finally restored soon after midnight.
I am sure that I am voicing the feeling of this House and of the country as a whole when I say that scenes of disorder on the scale which we have recently witnessed cannot be tolerated and that if they continue it may be necessary to arm the executive authorities with further powers for the purpose of preserving public order. I am not concerned to-day to apportion blame between the Fascists and the Communists. It is the function of the Government to preserve law and order. They would be failing in their duty if they allowed any faction, either of the Eight or of the Left, to disturb the public peace, and they are certainly not prepared to allow their responsibilities for the maintenance of order and the preservation of our free institutions to be usurped by any private and irresponsible body, no matter what may be their avowed aims or objects.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not quite evident to the Home Secretary that the reason why Sir Oswald Mosley did not require the police inside was that he had hundreds of men there, brought from all parts of the country by train, and that the majority of them were armed with some very dangerous implements. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh! What about the Com-
munists?"] Those implements were used inside the hall, as hon. Members of this House and others who were at the meeting can bear witness. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in consequence of the avowed declaration of the ultimate aim and object of this organisation it should be declared an illegal organisation—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—in exactly the same way as the Land League was declared illegal in Ireland?

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is the Home Secretary aware that the Fascists propose to hold a meeting at the White City on the Sunday before August Bank Holiday, and, in view of the fact that the White City holds ten times as many people as the Olympia, what steps is he going to take to prevent disturbances and casualties there?

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: In considering any future arrangements will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to ensure that any party in this country, however distasteful its views may be, has a chance of presenting its case to the public, and that the public are enabled to attend meetings without organised opposition and molestation?

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that leaflets were issued in East London on the morning of Thursday urging East London workers to assemble at Stepney Green and march to Olympia in order to fight Fascism, warmongers and capitalists, and that a great demonstration did meet at Stepney Green and was escorted by the police to Olympia, with the object of fighting Fascism; and does the right hon. Gentleman not think that that ought to have been prevented, and that people who engage a hall, for whatever purpose, ought to be protected?

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when Sir Oswald Mosley stood for Smethwick in 1926 practically every Conservative meeting was broken up by his Socialist supporters; and, although a leopard may change his shirt frequently, is it not obvious that he cannot change his spots?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think I have made it sufficiently clear that the view of His Majesty's Government is that a repetition of the kind of behaviour which
has recently taken place cannot be tolerated. I am sure it is in the interests of every party in this country that our meetings should be orderly; and, as one who has been long accustomed to political meetings, and in fairly rough quarters sometimes, I have always found that if you make a reasonable appeal to the common sense of the audience you will succeed. There may be organised demonstrations but there are powers to deal with those, whoever may be running the meeting. All I want to say from the police point of view is that we try to take no part with either side, because the duty of the police is to keep order. I have no reason to think that they did not do so on this occasion.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Having regard to the information which they received, did the police take any steps to have a police observer within the meeting?

Sir J. GILMOUR: There is a distinct difference between uniformed police going to a meeting, which is not proper unless they are asked to go, and the police taking such steps as they think are desirable to have the fullest information of these meetings.

Mr. THORNE: Were there not private detectives inside this meeting in the same way as there are at our meetings, and does it not seem strange that not one of the people who attended this meeting and were locked up belonged to the Fascists? Did the Fascists not use violence on several occasions?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware as to whether those who have been taken by the police were either Fascists or non-Fascists.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not probable that they were the organised interrupters?

Mr. V. ADAMS: Without wishing to imply any criticism of the right hon. Gentleman's answers at this stage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—I mean this entirely respectfully—I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely:
To call attention to the violence accompanying the Blackshirt meeting at Olympia on Thursday, 7th June.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that the Motion hardly complies with the Standing Order, if for no other reason than that it is not definite, and that I could not allow it.

Mr. ADAMS: May I make a submission on that. As to its definiteness I should have thought, with great respect, that what occurred last Thursday was all too definite. As to it being an urgent matter of public importance, surely the public are exposed to this danger of extraordinary and unprecedented disorder unless peculiar steps are taken?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not propose to make any remarks about what took place at Olympia. All I say is that the terms of the Motion do not comply with the Standing Order relating to the Adjournment.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: In view of the importance of the matter, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — WHIPSNADE ZOO (ACCIDENT).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 41.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the accident at the Whipsnade Zoo on 7th June, when a man was killed by lions, he will take steps to require keepers at this and other zoos to be armed with lethal or other weapons to enable them to deal with any such emergency effectively and also to ensure adequate precautions being taken?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no power to require keepers at zoos to be armed and I am not prepared to propose legislation on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR COACH ACCIDENT, HASLEMERE.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 44.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the verdict of the West Surrey coroner's jury on 4th June at an inquiry into the loss of life in a motor accident at a dangerous corner near Haslemere; whether, prior to the fatal accident, the corner was known to be dangerous; and will he ascertain who was responsible for allowing this spot on a much frequented road to remain dangerous?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The coroner's jury found that the accident was caused by an error of judgment on the part of the driver of the coach in respect of the dangerous corner and the speed at which he was travelling. My information is to the following effect: There have not been any previous accidents at this point. Within recent years the road has been widened to 30 feet and resurfaced. There is a white line in the centre. The gradient of the road is about 1 in 45; the view is quite unrestricted and the carriageway super-elevated, and there is a bank on the inside of the bend which would prevent vehicles travelling at an appropriate speed from dropping into the Punch Bowl. A warning notice is displayed at each end of the bend for the guidance of drivers on this hilly stretch of road. In all these circumstances, it would not appear that any responsibility attaches to the highway authority, or that any inquiry into their position in the matter is necessary or could serve any useful purpose.

CROSS-RIVER TRAFFIC (LONDON).

Mr. SELLEY: 46.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in the event of the London County Council deciding to recondition Waterloo Bridge to take four lines of traffic as desired by the House, he will be prepared to consider with the London County Council the desirability of providing a new bridge in the neighbourhood of Charing Cross to meet the requirements of cross-river traffic?

Mr. STANLEY: I am of course always prepared to consider any proposals for improvement of cross-river traffic which may be put before me by the responsible highway authority.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Royal Commission urged this as a most urgent matter in connection with cross-river traffic, and is he also aware that, unless something is done immediately or in a very short time, the opportunity of doing anything will be gone for ever owing to the building operations which have hitherto been stayed?

Mr. STANLEY: I am aware of the first part of the question because my hon. Friend has repeatedly told me so himself, but I am not aware of the second part.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Does my hon. Friend or his Department propose to take any initiative?

Mr. STANLEY: I have no power to take the initiative in these matters. It must come from the highway authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (SALARIES).

Mr. PETHERICK: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what basis the rates of exchange are calculated in the payment of salaries to members of His Majesty's Diplomatic Service stationed abroad; if the rate of exchange is so calculated that they are not worse situated in this respect than their colleagues in the Foreign Office; and if they have, or have not, expressed satisfaction with the existing arrangement?

Sir J. SIMON: I presume that my hon. Friend's inquiry refers to the rates of exchange for the payment of salaries of members of the Diplomatic Service stationed abroad in countries which are on the gold standard. In these cases arrangements have been made for the payment at the par of exchange of that proportion of their emoluments which is estimated to be spent in local currency. This system has given satisfaction, and is designed to place the members of the Service employed abroad in the same position in this respect as their colleagues at home.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY AND NAVAL PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. GROVES: 14.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will investigate the circumstances attending the stoppage of pension allowances to B. Norris, 23, Chapel Street, Stratford, LM. 422,094; and whether, in view of the continued ill-health of this ex-service man, he will have the case re-examined?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): Mr. Norris is unfortunately suffering from two disabilities, one of which is unconnected with his War service. The Ministry has, however, recently received representations from Mr. Norris regarding his War disability, and I have made arrangements for him to be medically examined.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

Mr. PETHERICK (for Mr. H. WILLIAMS): 19.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can furnish an estimate of the total value at wholesale prices of the food consumed in the United Kingdom in 1933, or for the latest available year for which such as estimate can be prepared; if he will state what proportion of the total consisted of foodstuffs imported from foreign and Empire countries, respectively; and, for comparison, can he furnish similar statistics for 1929?

Mr. ELLIOT: The latest information on the subject referred to in the question is contained in the report on the Agricultural Output and the Food Supplies of Great Britain prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in 1929, to which I would refer my hon. Friend.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Has my right hon. Friend any figures as to the retail prices, for they would be more interesting to the House?

Mr. ELLIOT: That is not under this Department, but under the Ministry of Labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (JUVENILES).

Mr. PETHERICK (for Mr. H. WILLIAMS): 34.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the percentages of juvenile employment published in the Local Unemployment Index issued by his Department are calculated by expressing the number of unemployed juveniles between the ages of 14 and 18 years as a percentage of the insured juveniles between the ages of 16 and 18 years: and whether, seeing that this method of calculation has the effect of representing the percentages of juvenile employment to be more than twice as large as it really is, he is prepared to alter the basis of calculation?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I have prepared a detailed reply to this question, which, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The basis on which these percentages are calculated is explained in each issue
of the Local Unemployment Index, and is as described by my hon. Friend. The figures are not intended to be used as an absolute measure of the amount of unemployment among juveniles, but the information which would be required to enable the total number of juveniles registered as unemployed to be expressed as a percentage of the total number available for employment is not at present obtainable, and in its absence the figures given are of value as providing a broad indication of the changes, from month to month, in the relative position in different localities. The provision of such information is one of the primary purposes of the Index. I hope that when the proposals as regards juveniles in Part I of the Unemployment Bill are in operation, data will become available which will enable these percentages to be computed on a more comprehensive basis.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (PRIVATE SCHOOLS).

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: 35.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether His Majesty's Government accept in principle the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on private schools in favour of State inspection of such schools, and the acquiring by the State of power to compel the closing of any such schools as may be found to be unsatisfactory; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation designed to effect such objects, and, if so, when?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): As indicated in the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) on the 29th March, 1933, there can be no question of proceeding in the near future with the legislation which would be required to give effect to the main recommendations of this committee. I regret, therefore, that I am not at present able to inform the hon. Member of the views of His Majesty's Government on the various recommendations of the committee.

Mr. EVANS: In view of the anxiety as to the Government's intentions in regard to private schools, will the hon. Gentleman press on the Government the desirability of making an early statement?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: There are more important matters for the Government to consider.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Has the Board of Education any views on any subject?

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

Further considered in Committee [Progress, 5th June].

[Sir DENNIS HEEBEET in the Chair.]

NEW CLAUSE —(Payment for excise licences by cheque.)

(1) Any Government Department or local authority having power to grant a licence on which an excise duty is payable may, if they think fit, grant the licence upon receipt of a cheque for the amount of the duty payable thereon.

(2) Where a licence is granted as aforesaid to any person and the cheque is subsequently dishonoured the licence shall be void as from the time when it was granted, and the department or authority who granted it shall send to that person, by registered letter addressed to him at the address given by him when applying for the licence, a notice requiring him to deliver up the licence to that department or authority within the period of seven days from the date when the notice was posted, and, if that person fails to comply with the requirement within that period, he shall be liable to an excise penalty of fifty pounds.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.35 p.m.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This new Clause is drafted in general form. It is obviously to the convenience of the local authorities that they should be able to take cheques in payment for licences and particularly for motor licences. It would cause a great deal of congestion in their work if they had to wait for the clearing of the cheque before issuing the licence. It has been the practice of licensing authorities, when they thought fit, to accept cheques in payment for licences and to issue the licence immediately upon receipt of the cheque. The result has been in a small number of cases that the cheque has been returned marked with the mysterious letters "R.D." The only remedy of the licensing authority has been to sue the man who gave the cheque by ordinary process of law for the money; meanwhile, the licence which was issued for the unmet cheque has remained valid, and the man has been able to drive his car.

Under the new provisions the licence granted in respect of the cheque not met in due course becomes void ab initio and the licensing authority will be able not only to proceed, if they wish, against the man for the money but to demand the return of the licence. If the man fails to comply with that demand, they will be able to impose a penalty upon him. In addition, the licence will be void, and no one will be able to use it to drive a car, without incurring the penalty for driving a car without a licence. The number of cases of this kind which have occurred are not many, but it is an undesirable practice and may grow, and at the present time the licensing authorities are left without the appropriate remedy, which is included in this Clause.

3.38 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: There are one or two points in regard to this provision which I think should be made clear. Are we to understand that during the seven days after the receipt of notice the licence will remain in force? Will the person be able to drive his car and to deliver up the licence on the 6th day or will he during that period be driving a car without a licence? It rather implies in the Clause that, provided he complies within the time stated, he will not be subject to any penalties. I think it ought to be made clear whether he will be out of order immediately upon getting the notice or upon the cheque being dishonoured. At what moment does he cease to be a private owner of a licence? Clearly, in the period between the application and the dishonouring of the cheque he will be in order. When the cheque is dishonoured, does he immediately cease to have a licence, or is that when he gets the notice, or on the day when the licence is delivered up?
What is the bearing of this upon insurance? Will it be made quite clear as to the period when the insurance will cease to cover the car, as regards third party risks? In most policies the car is only insured in so far as it is licensed, and it is therefore doubly necessary that it should be perfectly clear what the rights of third parties will be against the person whose car goes out on the streets, The licence to all appearances will be a perfectly regular one, and no policeman will be able to detect that the car is
not duly licenced if the licence has not been handed in. I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman now or at some later stage will explain how these things will work.

3.40 p.m.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: May I also ask my hon. Friend a question? What would happen if the car was sold during these seven days? If a man had bought the car on the understanding that it was licensed, what would his position be?

Mr. STANLEY: I think the answer is that his position would be a very unfortunate one. With regard to the two questions put by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), the answer to the first one is quite plain. If the hon. and learned Gentleman reads Sub-section (2) of the Clause, he will see that it lays down that the licence shall be void as from the time when it was granted. The dishonouring of the cheque ipso facto makes the issue of the licence itself void, and an offence would be committed by anyone who drove the car during that period. With regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman's second question, I will certainly look into the point. As he will be aware, there has been a considerable amount of discussion, in the Committee which is considering the Road Traffic Bill, on the whole question of conditions attached to insurance policies, and I have made certain promises with regard to the Report Stage of that Bill, in connection with which I will certainly look into the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE —(Repeal of tea duty.)

(1) The customs duty chargeable on tea shall cease to be charged.
(2) This section shall be deemed to hare had effect as from the twenty-fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four.—[Mr. D. Grenfell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The duty on tea has been a subject of very frequent controversy in the House
of Commons, and is probably one of the subjects which his received the most attention in past Budget Debates; but its importance has shrunk considerably in recent years, because other new duties have come into operation, and the amount involved, having regard to our considerably enlarged Budgets, is not so important as it was in former years. It will be no information to the Committee that tea was regarded as a luxury in bygone days, and that at one time it was only a very small proportion of our people who consumed this refreshing and pleasant beverage; and during the earlier years of its advent into this country tea was subject to a proportionately heavy rate of duty. I think that the duty commenced almost with the appearance of tea in this country, about 300 years ago.
The tax remained continuously until a very few years ago indeed, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), if I remember rightly, repealed it. The amount of duty chargeable has varied from time to time. It has been 8d. and 4d. and 5d., the variation being confined within those figures until the time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, in 1929, repealed the duty altogether. Tea produced within the Empire was subject to a preferential rate, being given a rebate which itself varied from one-sixth on occasion to one-half, the rate of preference which stands at the present time. The rate of duty now is 4d. per lb. on foreign-produced tea and 2d. per lb. on Empire-produced tea. The average rate of duty is a very much lower figure than the 4d. per lb. which is the full duty, because five-sixths of the tea consumed in this country, or almost exactly 80 per cent., is produced within the Empire, and only about 20 per cent. is produced in foreign countries. The average rate of duty, therefore, is only a fraction over the 2d. per lb. which is the preferential duty imposed upon 80 per cent. of our total annual consumption.
It will not be urged that this rate of duty has had a prohibitive effect upon the consumption of tea. To the satisfaction of most people in this country, and especially those who recognise the social value of tea, the consumption of tea has gone on increasing year by year, so much so that we have now reached a record figure of consumption—about
10 lbs. per person per annum. In previous Debates we have been told the exact number of cups of tea represented by each pound of the tea leaf, and I think that our total consumption of tea, measured in cups, now runs to something like 2,000 cups per person per annum. Therefore, an enormous quantity of tea is being consumed, but no one who knows the harmlessness of the beverage and the pleasure that it gives will complain because the quantity consumed has shown a tendency to increase. It is not because we desire to see a greater consumption of tea that we wish to abolish the present duty, but because we believe that the imposition of the duty upon an article so widely consumed adds a direct charge to the burden of taxation which is placed upon the mass of the people. Although the aggregate figure involved is only £4,000,000 per annum, that £4,000,000 is borne mainly by people with small incomes and people who are in a hundred other different ways paying beyond their share towards the revenue which is collected from the people of this country.
I will give the Committee some examples to show how the incidence of this duty bears unfairly as between different classes of people. The first example that I wish to give is that of a man who is in employment at a small wage, and whose income is £100 per annum, that £100 having to supply the household requirements of five people. One finds that if that family of five—the man, his wife and three children—consume, their normal share of the tea consumed in this country, they will spend from £4 to £5 on tea every year, and on that expenditure they will have to pay a duty of about 11s. That is for a family with an income of £100 a year. If you take a family of the same number with an income five times as large, their tea consumption will be approximately the same. They may drink a rather more expensive kind of tea, but they will pay almost exactly the same contribution in respect of the tea that they drink as will the family with an income of £100. Similarly, in the case of a "family with an income of £1,000, their contribution in the form of Tea Duty will be the same as the contribution paid by the family with only £100 to spend.
We think that to continue a tax which bears so heavily upon people with small
incomes is grossly unfair, because in the aggregate the number of people who have small incomes is considerably greater than the number of those who have large incomes, and, if the amount of this taxation were apportioned among the incomes spent in this country, one would find that the 90 or 92 per cent. of the population whose incomes constitute two-thirds of the annual income of the country bear proportionately a very much larger burden as a result of this kind of taxation than the 8 or 10 per cent. among whom the remaining third of the country's total income is divided. Well-to-do people always get off lighter than people with small incomes when taxation of this kind is imposed. Tea is now recognised to be a social and dietary necessity. No one will deny its great value, its indispensability and its cheapness compared with other beverages. While I may seemingly be arguing against my own case when I say that this cheap beverage is being widely consumed and that the consumption is growing, I urge the Financial Secretary, who has a just and sympathetic outlook on all these subjects, to consider the question from the standpoint of the tax imposition of £4,000,000 upon the consumption of this simple, indispensable diet of the poorest of the poor. I ask him to exercise his ingenuity and scan the Budget once again to find a means of raising £4,000,000 in a way which will inflict less hardship and deal more justly with those who are called upon to pay.

3.52 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I am very glad that this Clause has been moved, though I am not very hopeful that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, especially in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will be able to make a very sympathetic reply. The Mover built up an unanswerable case which the Financial Secretary will find it very difficult on its merits to meet. The point which I think will appeal most to the Committee is that this is an emergency tax. It was put on to meet the special circumstances of the financial crisis. It was never suggested that it was to be a permanent part of our financial system. The taxation of tea was deliberately abolished as part of the programme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) when Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1929. It was only revived because the financial position of
the country was such that every channel had to be explored in order to meet the deficit. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the policy of the Government was to restore the cuts and to put every one back, as to 50 per cent. of the position, where they were in 1931, it is unfortunate that he forgot this very simple and easy way of raising revenue, but a way which undoubtedly hits hardest the poorest in the land.
It was originally argued, as it may be still, that tea was a luxury, that people could live without it, and it was because it was regarded as a luxury in the nineteenth century that it became a very convenient means of raising money by indirect taxation. But it has become, after years of experience, part of the ordinary diet of almost every home in the country. When people are down on their uppers, when they are really hard hit by poverty, when they are on the dole and have to scrape to keep things together after they have paid their rent, bread and tea are considered necessaries and not luxuries.
I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to make it clear that this is not part of the permanent fiscal system. It is a big revenue to collect and, therefore, a big revenue to sacrifice in these days, but, the poorer the family, the more the tax burden, and, the cheaper the tea, the lower the quality that people are driven by necessity to consume, the higher the percentage of tax. To the lower-paid sections of the community, the agricultural labourer, the old age pensioner, the widow with a small pittance, it is a very serious burden. One knows enough of the finances of the country to realise that at this stage the Government are not going to sacrifice £4,000,000 of revenue, but I hope they will make it clear that it is not the policy of the National Government to retain this Duty and that at the earliest opportunity, they will go back to the precedent set by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping and sweep it entirely away.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I support the Clause. This duty was only brought forward to meet a special emergency. We have now somewhat got over that difficulty and the Government are saying to the country, "We are going to get back to the position that we occupied before we put these
taxes on." One would think that they might have turned to the Tea Duty, because it would be giving something to every household, and in many cases something material. Tea is probably used more in the poor man's home than in the rich, and the duty comes harder proportionately on the poor man. We know what an important part tea plays at every meal in the poor man's home. The two staple things than a poor man wants are tea and bread and butter. If he can get that, it means a meal. I would appeal to the hon. Member to view it in that light. At a time of so-termed "returning prosperity," as some argue, and when so much is said about the cost of living coming down, let the Government say, "We will prove it by taking off taxation." That is why we are making this appeal, although I do not suppose that we shall succeed this afternoon. I would like to be honest with the hon. Member, because he likes candour. If we do not succeed this afternoon, I would like it to be borne in mind for the next Budget, so that we can start off with at least one commodity which does not bear taxation.

4.2 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: I hope that, whatever the Financial Secretary considers on this proposed new Clause, he will not consider abolishing the preference on Empire tea. I am sure that those who have been connected with the growing of tea in all parts of the Empire have benefited considerably since the preference was given to Empire-grown tea. There are many companies which shut down completely, and, unfortunately, it was the Indian companies which most felt the slump. Most of the European companies which have their offices in London, have reserve funds to carry on in a slump, but the Indian-owned companies registered in Calcutta generally paid out the full amount in their dividends, and when the slump came along, a considerable number went into bankruptcy, and several of my Indian friends lost nearly all their money. For that reason, whatever happens in regard to this Clause, I do hope that the preference for Empire-grown tea will be continued.
It must be remembered that when a British company or an Indian company buys its machinery, it probably buys its internal combustion engines from Crossley's,
of Manchester, or from Tangyes, and its tea machinery from either Marshall's, of Gainsborough, or Davidson's of Belfast, and the slump in tea which occurred about five years ago had considerable repercussions in this country, because I believe that at one time about 50 per cent. of the turnover of Marshall's, of Gainsborough, was in engines, boilers and tea machinery. They have recently had to go in for reconstruction through the slump in tea. I hope that, just as the better prices and the preference given to Empire tea have helped our friends in India, they will also be of assistance to the greatest industry in Gainsborough. I hope that people will be able to carry on now, although, if we look through the list of dividends it will be found that many companies registered here have not nearly made up profits to put back in their reserve funds the losses they have suffered during the past four or five years.

4.6 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): It generally falls once a year at this appropriate hour that we discuss the Tea Duty, and when the discussion is initiated by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), it is always a friendly, genial and, I might almost say, gossipy Debate. The hon. Gentleman anticipated the result of his Motion, and, indeed, was good enough to inform us that he could not call attention to any deleterious effects that had followed upon the re-imposition of this duty. He was bound to admit, indeed, that the consumption had reached a record level. Naturally, if the duty were having any adverse result upon the consumption, the Exchequer would, in its own interest, reconsider the duty. Since the reimposition of the duty in 1932, however, the price of tea is actually lower to-day than it was after the duty was taken off in 1929. Consequently, there is no ground in logic and argument for the repeal of the duty, which is bringing the Exchequer a revenue of £4,000,000 a year.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) referred to this duty—and was, I thought,

about to introduce a new point—as one of the emergency measures. It is with considerable reluctance that I have to correct his recollection, for this duty was not reimposed in 1931 with the other emergency measures, but in 1932. Nor was it imposed for any temporary purpose. The object was twofold, as my right hon. Friend said at the time—first, that we might have the money, and, secondly, in order that we might give the preference, and thus assist the tea-growing parts of the Empire, of which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles), who has just addressed us, has such great experience. I do not think that I need detain the Committee in rebutting a case which has not been put. I cannot recognise, as I was asked to do, that the case is either fair or just, but what I do recognise is that, from the lips of the hon. Member for Gower, it has been both fairly, and justly stated.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Was it not the case that when the Tea Duty was taken off entirely, the market was flooded with cheap rubbish, mainly from the Dutch East Indies, the cheapest, nastiest tea you could get, and that it was' almost impossible to buy a pound of decent tea in the market? When a duty has to be paid on tea, it does not pay to import rubbish, and duty was really in the interests of consumers, because it very much improved the quality of the tea. Everyone in the tea trade, except those interested in importing cheap rubbish, would say that that was the case.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I always recognised that my hon. and learned Friend was an authority on whisky. I am glad to know that he is also an authority on tea.

Mr. TINKER: If the duty were taken off whisky, would it be detrimental to its quality?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Certainly.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 265.

Division No. 275.]
AYES.
[4.10 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Batey, Joseph
Cove, William G.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Cripps, Sir Stafford


Banfield, John William
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Daggar, George


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Harris, Sir Percy
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Edwards, Charles
Janner, Barnett
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro, W.)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Wilmot, John


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Hall, George H. (Merthr Tydvil)
Rathbone, Eleanor



Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Rea, Walter Russell
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Denville, Alfred
Lewis, Oswald


Adams. Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds. W.)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Liddall, Walter S.


Albery, Irving James
Dickie, John P.
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Drewe, Cedric
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Llewellin, Major John J.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Locker-Lempson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)


Apsley, Lord
Edmondson, Major Sir James
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Loder, Captain J. da Vere


Astor, Maj- Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Loftus, Plerce C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Eillsten, Captain George Sampson
Lovat Fraser, James Alexander


Baillie, Sir Adrlan W. M.
Etmley, Viscount
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mabane, William


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Balniel, Lord
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Everard, W. Lindsay
McCorquodale, M. S.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Fermoy, Lord
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Fox, Sir Gifford
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Bernays, Robert
Ganzonl, Sir John
McKie, John Hamilton


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Borodale, Viscount
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Bossom, A. C.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Boulton. W. W.
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Maitland, Adam


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Goff, Sir Park
Makins. Brigadier-General Ernest


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Goldie, Noel B.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Goodman, Colonel Albert, W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Granville, Edgar
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Brass, Captain Sir William
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Greene, William P. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grigg, Sir Edward
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Grimston, R. V.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Buchan. Hepburn, P. G. T.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Morgan, Robert H.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Burnett, John George
Gay, J. C. Morrison
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hales, Harold K.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Munro, Patrick


Calne, G. R. Hall.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hartland, George A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Patrick, Colin M.


Cautley, Sir Henry, S.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Peaks, Captain Osbert


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Penny, Sir George


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A (Birm., W)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsford)
Petherick, M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Clarry, Reginald George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pike, Cecil F.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Colfox, Major William Philip
Howard, Tom Forrest
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Radford, E. A.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Cook, Thomas A.
Hard, Sir Percy
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cooke, Douglas
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Rambotham, Herwald


Copeland, Ida
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rankin, Robert


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Ker, J. Campbell
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cranborne, Viscount
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ray, Sir William


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Knight, Holford
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Crossley, A. C.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Remer, John R.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lees-Jones, John
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Levy, Thomas
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas




Ross, Ronald D.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Spens, William Patrick
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Runge, Norah Cecil
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wardlaw-Mline, Sir John S.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)
Stewart, J. M. (Fife, E.)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Storey, Samuel
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Strauss, Edward A.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Savery, Samuel Servington
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Selley, Harry R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Summersby, Charles H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Tate, Mavis Constance
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wise, Alfred R.


Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Womersley, Sir Walter


Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Smithers, Sir Waldron
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Somerset, Thomas
Tree, Ronald
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Somervell, Sir Donald
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement



Somerville, Annesly A. (Windsor)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh
Sir Victor Warrender and Mr. Bilndell.

NEW CLAUSE —(Enactments relating to income tax reliefs.)

Section eight of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1931 and the Fourth Schedule to that Act are hereby repealed and the enactments relating to Income Tax relief described and specified in the Schedule (Enactments relating to reliefs from Income Tax) to this Act which were amended by the said Section and Schedule shall have effect as if the said Section and Schedule had not been enacted.—[Mr. Wilmot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The proposed Clause which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) repeals Section 8 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1931, and consequently the Fourth Schedule to that Act and substitutes for it a new Schedule which appears on page 1380 of the Order Paper:

SCHEDULE.


Enactments relating to Beliefs from Income Tax.


Subject matter.
Enactment.


Personal allowance
The Finance Act, 1920, s. 18.


Deductions in respect of relative or other person taking charge of widower's or widow's children, or acting as housekeeper, or in respect of widowed mother, &C.
The Finance Act. 1920, ss. 19 and 20, and the Finance. Act. 1924. ss. 21 and 22.


Deduction in respect of children.
The Finance Act, 1920, s. 21

I must ask the indulgence of the Committee in moving this new Clause not because it is not important—in my view, it is an extremely important Clause—but because it is a little difficult, without paper and pencil, to make clear all the arguments which support it. I therefore hope that the Committee will bear with me while I endeavour to explain as briefly as possible, what in fact the new Clause does and what alterations it makes. The various Income Tax reliefs and allowances are not embodied in any one Act, but are in the Income Tax Act and the various Finance Acts. It may be helpful if I give a brief indication of the effect of the change in these allowances brought about by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1931, in respect of each of the headings of allowances. Prior to the Emergency Budget of 1931 the personal allowance for a single man was £135, and it was reduced to £100, and for a married man the allowance of £225 was reduced to £150. Then there were the deductions in respect of relatives or other persons taking charge of children or acting as housekeeper or a widowed mother. That deduction was; reduced from £60 to £50. There were the allowances in respect of children, and the allowance in respect of the first child was
reduced from £60 to £50, and for other children from £50 to £40.

The earned income allowance was altered from one-sixth, with a maximum of £250, to one-fifth, with a maximum of £300. The Committee will observe that in this case there was actually an apparent improvement in the allowance, but I will refer to its effects a little later, because I want to rebut the suggestion made by the Minister that the improvement in this particular allowance went a long distance to offset the disadvantages of the other changes. Then there is the relief in respect of the taxable income thus arrived at after deduction of those allowances. The Committee will remember that the alteration had the effect of giving, instead of the first £250 of taxable income at 2s., the first £175 at 2s. 6d. The relief in respect of life insurance premiums was a very small alteration.

In considering the effect of these changes, which are somewhat difficult to follow without paper before one, it is necessary to refer to the effect on specimen incomes. I will not trouble the Committee with the recital of all the figures which I mentioned on the Budget Resolution, but some of those figures are so remarkable and the results so inequitable in their effect as to bear reference again. The single man with £200—we are right down now in the £4 a week class of Income Tax payer—had his Income Tax increased in 1931 from £3 4s. to £7 10s. That was a very large increase, being more than double, and, as my hon. Friend beside me points out, his tax amounted very nearly to a fortnight's wages. That enormous increase in tax, one of more than 100 per cent., was due not to the alteration of the standard rate of taxation, but in the main to the withdrawal of those allowances. That man is only affected to the extent of 15s. by the reduction in the standard rate of tax. So that here we have a man, of the poorest class of taxpayer, whose tax is increased from £3 4s. to £7 10s., and the only remission of taxation he receives as a result of the present Budget is a reduction of 15s. He is still paying £3 11s. more than he was paying before the emergency Budget. If we look at the £2,000 a year man earning ten times as much, that man gets back £37 16s. 3d. out of his total increase and is left with increased taxation of only £8.

It is obvious that the effect, whatever may have been the intention, of a simple reduction in the standard rate without any restoration of the allowances is definitely to penalise the poor and to enrich the well-to-do. That is true of the income of all single men, and it is even more true of the married man, and the larger the family the greater the injustice. The Committee will see how this arises. By reducing the allowances the increase of tax fell heaviest upon those who had the largest families. Take the case of a married man with no children earning £250 a year. We are still among the comparatively poor people. Prior to the emergency Budget he paid no Income Tax at all. The income was held to be so small as to allow of no margin. The emergency Budget put a tax on that family of £6 5s. a year. All the relief they get by the present proposal's is a relief of 12s. 6d., and they are left to bear increased taxation of £5 12s. 6d. The well-to-do couple with £2,000 a year and no children get back £36 11s. 3d. in remission due to the alteration in the standard rate, and are left with only £17 3s. 9d. of increased taxation. Take the married man with £500 a year and three children. The tax was increased in 1931 from £3 4s. to £15. That family had the tax increased by nearly five times; yet their total share of our boasted prosperity of to-day is a remission of 30s. That family is struggling against very heavy expenditure and under very great difficulties and facing the constant fear of unemployment which is the lot of so many. They are left with an increased tax burden of £10 6s. a year while the well-to-do family, the £2,000 a year family, with three children, whose tax went up from £275 in 1930 to £333 in 1931 has had £33 6s. 3d. of that increase restored and only £23 18s. 9d. of the increase is left. Well over half is restored in that case but only one-tenth is restored in the case of a man with an income of £500 a year. I do not think it needs any further figures to demonstrate that the effect of the change of standard rate without altering the allowance has been entirely inequitable. It has reduced the taxation of those who were the least urgently in need of a reduction, and I hope that even at this stage the Minister will consider whether this now Clause cannot be accepted, in order to reduce these obvious inequalities.

I should like to say something about the real effect of the change in the allowances for earned income. The old allowance was one-sixth with a maximum of £250 and that was altered to one-fifth with a maximum of £300. Upon examination of this apparent concession to the small Income Tax payer—a concession made at a time when the other allowances were being reduced—one finds that here again the concession favours the taxpayer with the higher income, and the concession increases in volume as the income increases. While the smaller people are mulcted in taxation out of all proportion to their taxable capacity, a concession was made which had this effect: the larger the income, up to a certain point when the concession ceased, namely, up to £1,500, the larger the amount accruing from the concession.

Let me give an example. A taxpayer with an income of £300 a year had an increase of £10 in his earned income allowance. On an income of £500 a year the increase was £17 in the earned income allowance. The figures I am giving are not figures of tax payable, but of income released from tax. There was a reduction in personal allowance of £35 for single men and £75 for married men and £10 for each child irrespective of income. The relief goes on up to £1,500 a year income. In that case there was an increase of £50 in earned income allowance but otherwise the same reductions. A married man earning £300 a year paid tax on £65 more after the change in the allowance, while the married man earning £1,500 only paid on £25 more. The single man earning £300 a year paid tax on £25 more while the single man earning £1,500 a year paid tax actually on £15 less. Thus if we take the effect of this to the end of the scale, that is, up to £1,500, where it ceases to apply, we get the remarkable anomaly that while the £300 a year single man is paying tax on £25 a year more of his income, the £1,500 a year single man is paying tax actually on £15 less. I submit that if for no other reason than to adjust what is obviously an anomaly, and probably a quite unintentional anomaly, this question of the allowances should be tackled now before it goes any further.

On what is generally known as the reduced-rate allowance, which before the
emergency Budget was five-ninths of the standard rate on the first £250, and is now half the standard rate on the first £175, the alteration in the standard rate allowance has had this curious effect. Not only was the margin of £250 reduced to £175, but the tax on this sum was increased from 2s. to 2s. 6d., an increase of 6d. irrespective of income. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary must have given careful consideration to the matter, because it has a most unfortunate effect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the assurance in dealing with this emergency taxation and the other sacrifices called for by way of reduction of salaries, reduction of wages, reduction of unemployment benefit, that he would proceed to restore in the same proportions to the same persons from whom the sacrifices were demanded, but upon examination of his proposals we find that he has done the exact opposite. He has restored only half the reduction in wages but he has restored in full the Income Tax payer's contribution so far as it affects the well-to-do. As soon as we come to examine the effect of the change upon the poor Income Tax payers we find that the right hon. Gentleman is restoring not the full increase of Income Tax made in 1931 but only half.

It is necessary to look at this matter a little closer to see how that happens In restoring the full rate of tax the rich man who is paying on a large portion of his income at 5s. goes back to the old rate of 4s. 6d. When the increase of standard rate was made the reduced rate, as I have shown, was increased from 2s. to 2s. 6d., but there is no provision for an equivalent reduction in that rate, for it is now 2s. 3d. Therefore, while the standard rate is reduced to 100 per cent. of the increase, the half rate is only reduced by 50 per cent. of the increase. In dealing with these points in his reply at a late stage of the Budget Resolutions, the Financial Secretary pointed out that the small Income Tax payers, the persons who are known as the black-coated workers, were doing very well. He produced, with his usual convincing charm, figures to support the argument that whereas the well-to-do were paying tax on a very large percentage of their income, paying tax which amounted to a very large proportion of their total in-
come, the black-coated worker, the small salary earner, was escaping with only a marginal fraction of his income taxed. That is true, and it must obviously be the case.

The very principle which underlies Income Tax, and the whole conception of Income Tax, surely is, first of all, to allow the individual his minimum living requirements, that is, sufficient income to meet, so to speak, the overhead charges of his life, rent, food, clothes and all that is necessary for him in order to be able to go on earning his income. Obviously, if you taxed him beyond that point, not only would it have grave social effects but it would reduce the earning capacity of the individual. Therefore, the basic principle is, first of all, to allow a certain sum free of tax and then to tax the margin over that, the luxury margin. That being the principle of the tax it is, if I may say so with respect, completely beside the point to quote percentages and to say that this taxpayer is paying so much per cent. of his income and the small man is paying on only a fractional percentage of his income. If the hon. Member were to set aside the minimum living expenses, the overhead charges of life, and were to apply his proportions to the luxury margin he would find that his figures turn out rather differently, and that must always be so. There are very few Members of the Committee, if any, who would not agree that that is properly so, and that the basic principle of taxation should be taxation in accordance with ability to pay, ability to pay as regards taxable income after the minimum living requirements have been allowed for.

The hon. Member produced another interesting set of figures, which were designed to show that the effect of the Government's decision to restore the standard rate and leave the allowances untouched was not, as has been argued on this side of the House, a restriction of spending, and he demonstrated that the real savers of money in the community turned out to be the working people. He drew a picture, which was almost lyrical in its terms, of the amazing prosperity of the working classes, and especially the affluence in which the humble clerk with an income of £300 a year was able to live. Were not these people, he asked, building up great funds in the savings banks? Either the hon. Gentleman or some other hon. Member
also said: "Look at the building societies. Look at the enormous accretions of capital which are represented by building societies. Here we have evidence that so far from these reductions in allowances creating hardship they seem to be the cause of enormous prosperity."

The real position is that there are two causes which contribute to these figures. In so far as they refer to savings banks deposits they reflect the pitiable fear of this class of worker that misfortune and disaster may at any time overtake him. He is restricting his spending beyond what is proper; he is restricting the development of himself and his family in order to scrape together a few paltry pounds which may be a meagre bulwark between him and the disaster of unemployment, or old age and sickness, which he knows is descending on his friends and neighbours. That is causing these people to save and save, and I suggest that in these circumstances saving ceases to be a virtue. It may be a necessity for the individual, but for the nation it is no longer a virtue. It is cramping the development of the family and has a very evil effect on the balance of economy within the community itself.

If we turn to the figures of building societies we only have to know something about the circumstances of these unfortunate people who, owing to the default of the Government, and of local authorities in many places, in not providing adequate housing accommodation to be let at rents which people can afford to pay, have been forced, willy nilly, to enter into contracts for the purchase of property which in many cases no reasonable business man with a free choice would entertain for a moment. The records show that these unfortunate people scrape together the deposit money somehow, commit themselves to a weekly payment by way of mortgage interest and other charges, which they are quite unable to bear, and at the first breath of adversity find themselves in a position when they must surrender the property and lose all they have paid towards its acquisition. Houses bought in these circumstances represent part of the swollen transactions of building societies, but they do not in any manner reflect the prosperity of the purchasers, who perhaps might be represented, if the true facts were not known, as having moved upwards out of the ranks of rent payers
into the ranks of real estate owners. They are not the facts. I appeal to the Financial Secretary to restore all these allowances. It will cost considerably less than the reduction of the standard rate.

Captain DOWER: Can the hon. Member say how much it would cost?

Mr. WILMOT: It would cost about £26,000,000 to restore all the allowances. I put a question to the Financial Secretary the other day as to what it would cost to restore all the earned income allowances and also I asked:
What would be the cost to the Exchequer of substituting an allowance of five-ninths of the standard rate of tax of 4s. 6d. in the £ on the first £175 of taxable income for the present allowance of one-half of the standard rate and, alternatively, of restoring the allowance of five-ninths of the standard rate of 4s. 6d. in the £, on the first £250 of taxable income, which was in operation immediately prior to the passing of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1931."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1934; col. 29, Vol. 290.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was kind enough to give me the following figures. The first alternative, the more limited allowance, would cost £4,000,000 a year, and the second, a complete restoration of the reduced rate of allowances, would cost £13,000,000. It has been stated that the total cost of restoring all the allowances to the 1931 position, that is to give the allowances which are provided for by the new Clause, would be £26,000,000 per year. I put it to the Financial Secretary that there is an overwhelming case for the restoration of these allowances. As a method of disposing of part of the surplus by way of a restoration of the sacrifices called from Income Tax payers it would be a better method, because it would give the relief in exactly those places and in the proportion where the sacrifices were made and where the relief is needed, and, moreover, would remove some important and indefensible anomalies which have arisen, probably quite unintentionally, as a result of restoring the standard rate in full and leaving the allowances entirely unaltered. I hope the Financial Secretary will accept the new Clause. If he cannot see his way to accept it as a whole that at any rate he will restore the reduced rate of allowances to what they were prior to the emergency of 1931.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. DAVID MASON: The Committee is indebted to the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) for a very admirable speech. He has gone into this matter very fully, and given us a number of examples to build up an unanswerable case in favour of something being done to reconcile what I think is a real injustice with regard to the position of the black-coated worker and the small Income Tax payer as compared with those who come under the £2,000 limit. I hope the Financial Secretary will give a sympathetic answer to the appeal that has been made, and that between now and Report something will be done to adjust many of the anomalies which now exist. If he did I am sure that he would be meeting the wishes of Members in all sections of the House. The reductions made in the allowances are very severe, and press very hard upon those sections of the community which are least able to bear the burden. Now that we are in a position to make some concessions I think it should be our first duty to have regard to the position of those who have to bear the greater share of the burden.
I am in favour of a reduction of the standard rate of Income Tax. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) argued that it was better to spend £20,000,000 than to make reductions in taxation, because it would lead to a greater amount of employment. I do not agree. If you can put forward a concrete case like the new Cunarder or the new bridge, then I am in favour of spending money on such work, but it has not the supreme advantage which comes from an arrangement of your finances so as to relieve the burden of taxation on all sections of the community, because you not only help those classes to whom the hon. Member for East Fulham has referred, but the whole community, and in this way stimulate trade and industry. Here is a most deserving case. If you can so adjust the burden of taxation that you will increase the purchasing power of all those in receipt of these allowances it would be a great advantage to trade and industry—a legitimate advantage. You would not be spending money needlessly.
There is a surplus on the Budget for the year, and surely the first charge should be a redaction of Income Tax.
But why stop at £2,000 a year? Why stop at the standard rate? If the principle is sound why not proceed to make easier the lot of the poor, make it easier for them to increase their purchasing power and so stimulate trade in every part of the country? I say that you should adjust your taxation to those who have a hard job to maintain appearances. There are very few hon. Members in this House to fight the battles of the black-coated workers. There are many who want to do something for the very poor and the working classes, but this particular section of the community have few members to speak for them, and I congratulate the hon. Member for East Fulham on the admirable speech he has made on their behalf. I hope the Financial Secretary will give it, as I am sure he will, his sympathetic consideration and that something will be done to adjust these anomalies before Report stage.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. MABANE: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) who has made this subject his own. I am in general sympathy with his proposals because they mean a reduction in Income Tax, but before I go on to show how far I disagree with his particular proposal let me deal with one or two points he mentioned, in the course of which, I think, he stated a case rather unfairly. He referred to the speech of the Financial Secretary, in which he gave some figures showing the increases in the savings of the middle classes and poorer classes of this country. The hon. Member tried to destroy that argument by saying that these sections of the community were saving to-day because they were afflicted by the fear of the vicissitudes of industrial life.
Let me mention one fact which, if the hon. Member does not know it, may surprise him. There are provisions made by the State against the ordinary accidents of industrial life, against old age, against ill health, against unemployment, against widowhood and so on. In the last year for which figures are available the amount expended on these items, that is to say for old age, widows' and orphans' pensions, National Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance—I do not include transitional payments—was no less than £218,000,000, a sum £20,000,000
greater than the total national revenue in the year 1913–14. I think that that is convincing evidence that the ordinary accidents of industrial life are being met in a way in which they have never been met before.

Mr. WILMOT: Those provisions by the State do not apply to the very class of people to whom I was referring. Unemployment Insurance, National Health Insurance, widows' pensions and all those things are limited, I think, to the £250 a year class. That is almost under the Income Tax limit. It is the very class that is called upon to pay this tax and has none of the benefits to which I referred.

Mr. MABANE: I was trying all the time the hon. Member was speaking to discover at what point wealth became wicked. I gathered that it was at about £250 a year. The hon. Member was speaking, I understood, on behalf of the £200 a year man. I remember that he gave certain figures which led me to the belief that he thought that to have £500 a year was somewhat wicked.

Mr. WILMOT: Oh, no.

Mr. MABANE: The hon. Member was speaking of the unfair way in which certain allowances operated, and he said, for example, that the man with £200 a year got only so much—I believe the amount was £7 10s.—whereas the man with £500 a year, this wealthy individual, got £17 10s. a year. If the hon. Member is going to raise his standard of virtue and let it be virtuous to have an income of £500 or even £1,000 a year, I agree that National Health Insurance and widows' and orphans' pensions do not apply to those people. As the hon. Member correctly said, all these various forms of State assistance apply to the person with an income of £250 a year or less. I thought he was speaking on behalf of those people.
The hon. Member also drew attention with considerable force and great accuracy to certain apparent statistical anomalies; he spoke of the £2,000 a year man and the £200 a year man as if those were particular individuals who were always static, as if the man with £2,000 a year always had £2,000 a year. But what the Government have to consider, again always assuming that certain disparities of income exist and are not entirely undesirable, is the income that re-
mains after the tax is paid. It is true to say that a great many of the people who have incomes on the higher level, from £1,000 a year upwards, depend for those incomes on the earnings of businesses, and it is equally true to say that during the period of depression they suffered very heavily indeed, far more heavily than those who were working for a salary and received that salary whatever happened.

Mr. T. SMITH: No, you cannot prove it.

Mr. MABANE: Let me take as an example my own humble self. I say quite definitely that as a business man I would have been very glad to have accepted the kind of cut that was imposed in 1931 as the only out in my income resulting from the depression. Very many other business men could join me quite honestly and produce figures to show that that is a fair statement of the case. But, notwithstanding these criticisms of the hon. Gentleman's speech, I am in general sympathy with a reduction of Income Tax. It is not a subject new to me. I have hitherto been met with the most violent opposition from Members on the Labour benches, notably the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), when I have suggested a reduction in Income Tax. I am, therefore, glad to find that hon. Members opposite have at last joined with me.
Last year I moved a reduction in the standard rate because I believed that certain costs in the Budget had been over-estimated, particularly the cost of unemployment. I pointed out last year that the Budget was framed on an estimate of an average throughout the year of 2,800,000 unemployed. I held that that was far too high a figure. I said that if that figure proved to be correct it would be indubitable evidence that the Government had failed. I did not believe that that figure would be the figure that we would see at the end of the year. If there were any doubt about it, that industry and the Government together would be successful in reducing unemployment very substantially from that high level, I thought that that doubt would be removed by a reduction in the Income Tax, and I said so. Humbly I suggested to the Chancellor that if unemployment was reduced on an average
by 60,000 a month, that is to say by 720,000 in the course of the year, that would pay for a reduction in the standard rate of Income Tax by 6d. I well recollect the Chancellor's reply to me. He scoffed at me, and it is on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Volume 277, column 805, that when I suggested that there might possibly be a reduction of 720,000 in the number of the unemployed in the year 1933–34, the Chancellor of the Exchequer turned to me and said:
If my hon. Friend believes that, he will believe almost anything."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1933; col. 805, Vol. 277.]
I have always tried to convince the Chancellor from this humble seat that only one thing modifies my admiration of his determination and ability, and that is my fear that he has not sufficient belief in his own powers and merits, and that he always underestimates the effects of whatever he is to do. He said last year that any man who believed there would be a reduction of 720,000 in the number of unemployed during the 12 months, would believe almost anything. The other day I motored from the North of England to London. Throughout the journey my attention was called to a series of National Government posters assuring me that in the course of a year 742,000 more men had been put to work. So I hope that, my prediction of last year having proved true, the Chancellor will not scoff at me this year when I suggest that a similar reduction might be possible in the present year, if proposals such as are made by the hon. Member for East Fulham, or in a more modified form by myself, are accepted.
This year the standard rate has been reduced. But I want more, and for two reasons. The first reason is that the lower grade of Income Tax payers, and particularly the married men with families, can put up a very substantial case to show that they have not been treated equitably, that their share in the distribution of available resources is disproportionately low. The second reason is that this concession, if it were made, would prove profitable. I am satisfied that the increased spending that would result would be so great that there would be provided additional revenue from many sources, Customs and Excise, Death Duties, and so on—Death Duties owing to the increase in Stock Exchange
values that would result; and that there would be a saving in expenditure, particularly on unemployment. Therefore the cost of the concession would be more than met by the increase in revenue and the decrease in expenditure.
I think the hon. Member for East Fulham was quite right in saying on a former occasion that a concession of this sort would be the one most likely to drive money into channels of expenditure that would contribute to the improvement of industry. I cannot go so far as the hon. Member. I have on the Paper a Clause of my own, supported by the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), which is more moderate, and I think I might ask the Financial Secretary to consider it, if not accept it, to-day. The Chancellor is being urged by the hon. Member for East Fulham to restore all the allowances that were altered in 1931. I think he has got hold of a very curious figure as to the cost. He told the Committee that the cost of this restoration would be £26,000,000. I do not profess to know what the cost would be, but I have referred to the speech of Lord Snowden, then Mr. Snow-den, at the time when he introduced the second Budget of 1931. He told the House that the cost in a full year of the alterations in allowances would be £51,500,000. Under the Section relating to personal allowances he was asked what the total cost of the concessions would be, and that was the figure he gave. I may be wrong in supposing that the amount referred only to the alteration in allowances, and if so the error is really not so much mine as due to the lack of clarity of the then Chancellor. But even supposing that the amount is £26,000,000, I want to go half way.
My new Clause suggests that instead of putting back all the allowances, the limit of £100 should remain. Previously it was £135 for a single person, and the allowance for married persons was £225; that is a difference of £90. I would like to retain the allowance for a single person at £100 and make the allowance for married persons £190, retaining the same difference of £90. I would also restore the allowance for children, from the present £50 for the first child and £40 for the second, to £60 for the first child and £50 for subsequent children. I cannot estimate what the cost of these various concessions would be, but so far as I can
make out it would be about half. I am fully convinced that if they were made, the result would prove that the national finances are capable of standing those concessions. I am satisfied, just as I was last year, that the condition of the country is going to improve and that, in any case, there will he a surplus at the end of the current financial year. I believe that that surplus would he not decreased but increased if the suggestion which I have made, or a modified form of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for East Fulham, were adopted. Apart from that, I am certain that such a course would give the utmost satisfaction to a large section of the people of this country who well deserve consideration.

5.16 p.m.

Major HILLS: I also cannot accept the proposal of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot). I do wish that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had found it possible to restore some of the allowances but here the hon. Member is asking for an increase on the debit side of the Budget, of £26,000,000. On the Chancellor's figures he has not the money to pay for the concession which is being asked. It may be that we shall see a surplus at the end of the year. I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer "builded better than he knew" and that his activities will produce a surplus of more than £26,000,000 at the end of the year. But that lies in the future and probably the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not agree with me in my view of the future which is more optimistic than his. There was one point in the speech of the hon. Member for East Fulham against which I would like to enter a caveat, and that was his attack on the building societies.

Mr. WILMOT: I did not attack the building societies.

Major HILLS: Unless I failed to hear the hon. Member properly, he spoke as though building societies, as a general practice, induced people to invest money in insecure property, suggesting that when these unfortunate people had paid their deposits and some of the weekly instalments and failed to continue the payments, they lost the property, which, was then taken over by the building societies.

Mr. WILMOT: I should not like it to be thought, as the right hon. and gallant Member apparently thinks, that what I said was in any way an attack on the building societies. It was an attack upon a deduction drawn from, building society figures—a deduction which has led to the error of supposing that the purchase of a house by a person who cannot afford it is evidence of means.

Major HILLS: I think it is very difficult to read the hon. Member's speech as other than an attack upon the building societies. If you attack the figures of a large commercial body like the building societies then you attack that body itself.

Mr. WILMOT: The right hon. and gallant Member has missed my point. I did not attack the figure. I am sure it is absolutely accurate. I attacked the deduction drawn from that figure that because there are so many thousand or so many million houses in the occupation and ownership of poor people, then those poor people are not as poor as they look. The fact is that they cannot pay the interest in many cases.

Major HILLS: I do not want to pursue the subject, but I think that when the hon. Member reads his speech he will see that the way in which he used the expression, "jerry-built houses" was an attack on the building societies.

Mr. WILMOT: There are some. [HON. MEMBERS: "Many!"]

Major HILLS: To come back to the point. As I say, I think some concession might be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) has referred to a proposed new Clause which is down in his name and mine. It is a more modest proposal than that of the hon. Member for East Fulham, but still it would do something. The reason why I do not agree with the hon. Member for East Fulham is because I do not accept his canon of taxation as being the only principle which ought to guide us in these matters. Ability to pay is one of the principles that ought to settle taxation, but is is not the only one. I supported a reduction in the standard rate as against a restoration of allowances—which cost an almost equal amount—because
I was and am convinced that the country as a whole, and especially those who work for wages, would be more benefited by a reduction in the standard rate than by the restoration of the allowances. That point was fully argued on the Resolution and on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I do not want to go back on it, but I would point out to the hon. Member for East Fulham, who made a very able speech, that were his principle carried to an extreme it would bring him into line with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) because it would result in the reduction of all incomes to one statutory level. In saying that I do not think I do an injustice to either of my hon. Friends opposite.

Sir S. CRIPPS: You do, to me.

Major HILLS: I appeal to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to restore the general balance of the Budget—not the exact financial balance to which I shall refer later—but the general balance which I think was rather upset by the refusal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to devote his realised surplus of £31,000,000 to the relief of the Unemployment Fund. I should not be in order in referring to the question except by way of an illustration, but to my mind that was a grave defect in the Budget. The payment of that £31,000,000 for that purpose would have weighted the Budget on the social side where I think it required weighting. I think that it is rather too light on that side. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot now do that. He has not the £31,000,000 to spend, but if my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary could announce that there was hope of some concession on the allowances, then I suggest there is that very admirable new Clause to which the hon. Member for Huddersfield has already alluded. That would be a very modest way of dealing with this difficulty. Though I think the Chancellor was right in reducing the standard rate, still there are some arguments which the hon. Member for East Fulham used and which I find it rather hard to meet. I find it hard to meet the argument that the whole of the restoration has not in all cases gone to the right people. Although I do not go the whole way with the hon. Member, I think there is a case on those lines to a certain extent. I do
not know whether the Financial Secretary, of whose sympathy I am certain, feels that he is in a position to make a concession which might involve a loss of revenue but may I cheer him by pointing out that all the prophets are of one voice in assuring him that there will be a surplus at the end of the financial year. He could make no better use of that surplus than by giving a concession in this respect.

5.23 p.m.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I am sure the Committee have great sympathy with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) in the difficulty in which they obviously find themselves. They were full of admiration, as I was, for the speech of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot). They agreed with the principle of his proposal, and yet they are anxious to find some means of drawing a distinction between their views and those of the hon. Member. In spite of that, it is apparent that they are in general agreement and indeed there is in this Committee, general agreement, that the Government ought to make some concession on the lines proposed by the hon. Member for East Fulham. The hon. Member for Huddersfield always makes interesting speeches and we listen to him with delight when he makes his own fresh speeches on these occasions or even when he redelivers a speech which he has delivered on a similar occasion in a previous year. He is entitled to point out to us that last year he made a prophecy which has been crowned with unusual success. We do not like people who say, "I told you so," when they have made a pessimistic prophecy which has been borne out by events, but our hearts warm to the man who is able to claim that he made a very optimistic prophecy and that events have turned out as he foretold. I cannot understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not more impressed by the hon. Member's statement last year. Perhaps it was that the hon. Member did not emphasise his opinion by his vote in the Division Lobby.
It is clear, however, that on this occasion the hon. Member is in agreement with this proposal. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for
Ripon has also lent the weight of his great authority as an ex-Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the proposal and in particular to the assertion, which I think he made himself at an earlier stage in these Debates, that there will be an ample surplus on this Budget to provide for the concession for which we ask. I am not going to repeat the arguments on that point which I used, I fear at some length, in the Second Reading Debate, but I think I made a clear case and other hon. Members have done the same, to show that there is certain to be on this Budget a surplus sufficient to meet the demand which is being made by nearly every section in this Committee for some concession to the small Income Tax payers. The effect of such a concession on the trade of the country would, I believe, be as great as the effect of the reduction in the standard rate of Income Tax.
As the hon. Member for East Fulham has pointed out, the reduction in the standard rate has an unequal effect as between different taxpayers in different ranges of income. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the principle of the balance of sacrifice was the foundation of that part of the Budget proposals which gives relief to the taxpayers. That principle demands consideration for those with moderate incomes and the restoration, in part at any rate, of the pre-crisis scale of allowances. The Chancellor's argument is that the concession of 6d. in the £ in the standard rate will give a stimulus to industry and encourage people who are in charge of businesses and thus increase employment. But the purchasing power of the consumer and the psychology of the consumer are also important considerations. By adopting this proposal you would encourage consumers to spend and increase their ability to spend and thus produce a direct and immediate effect upon the retail trade of the country.
If the Chancellor distributed part, at any rate, of his Income Tax relief to the people with moderate incomes, who made the greatest proportionate sacrifice in 1931, it would involve no loss of economic stimulus to industry. It would be fairer and in closer accord with the principle of the balance of sacrifice—the principle of giving to each according to
his sacrifice in 1931—and it would, it is apparent, commend itself to hon. Members sitting in every part of the Committee. I would, therefore, add my word to that of those who have preceded me in asking the Financial Secretary, if he does not find it possible to make on this occasion the complete concession for which the hon. Member asks—and I cannot help thinking that the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is rather ominous in this connection—at any rate to give the Committee the assurance that between now and the Report stage the whole question will be very carefully considered with a view to a substantial concession being made to the opinions that have been expressed this afternoon.

5.31 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I do not think I should have risen to say anything on this Clause if it had not been for the rather curious misunderstanding of some of the arguments used by the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) on the part of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane). The case of the hon. Member for East Fulham, so far as it could be expressed in figures, seemed to me crystal clear, but it is obvious that it was not so to all Members of the Committee. I do not propose to repeat the figures used by the hon. Member for East Fulham, but surely the main point of them was that, whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury repeatedly, during their exposition of the Budget and since, laid it down as the principle which has guided their distribution of the resources at their command that the first claim on those resources was that of the persons who had made sacrifices for the national emergency, and that the restitution should be proportional to the sacrifice, the actual effect of the cut in the standard rate, unaccompanied by any restitution of the 1931 cuts in allowances, was a flat contradiction of that principle—that in fact in every group of Income Tax payers you find those who, because of their heavy family responsibilities, were more hardly hit in 1931 by the double sacrifice imposed on them through the reduction in family allowances, coupled with the increase in standard rate who now get back the least of what they then gave, both in actual money and in proportion to their sacrifice; and, secondly, that
as you go up in the income scale, the richer the Income Tax payer, the more he now gets back, not only actually, but in proportion to his sacrifice. Those figures are undisputed and indisputable.
What interested me was the answer or, if I may venture to call it, the lack of answer that has been given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I have heard him deal with this point on several occasions, and his justification of that apparent contradiction between the principle which he and the Chancellor have enunciated and the actual effect of their proposals has been briefly this: First of all, he said that with the exception of the restoration of the total cuts in unemployment benefit, the Chancellor's proposals have carried out the principle of equivalency in restoration, because he pointed out that those who suffered salary cuts have got back just half their salary cuts, and that Income Tax payers as a class, who sacrificed £58,000,000, are getting back £24,000,000, and that is rather less than a half. I submit that that is to interpret proportionate restitution in a sense that is utterly meaningless. Does he really imagine that Income Tax payers as a class are conscious of such a strong sense of class solidarity that a man with an income of £500 a year, and a wife and five children to keep out of it, who gets back only one-tenth of the extra taxation paid in 1931 will say to himself, "It is true I only get back a tenth, and that even £4 10s., the tax I have still to pay, is rather hard to find out of my small income, but let me console myself because my fellow Income Tax payer who has an income of £2,000 a year and has been wise enough to remain a batchelor gets back four-fifths of his salary, so all is well"? I suggest that that use of the law of averages reduces it to an absurdity.
The second argument which the Financial Secretary used was that, after all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not do everything at once, but that those who were getting back very little under the present proposals would only have to wait another year, and perhaps they would then get something more. That is rather better than stones for bread, his first argument. It offers a hope of bread in the future, but I would like to know why, under this proposal of the Government, it is always the children that have to wait. It is so not only under the proposals of this part of the Bill, but
throughout the Government's proposals. A very large proportion of the Government's supporters actually nerved themselves to go into the Lobby on an Amendment in opposition to the Government to make up the children's allowances in regard to unemployment insurance to 3s., but they did not get their way, and we got no assurance on that point. When the Milk Bill was introduced, all that we got for the children was the possibility that if there was money enough, one-third instead of one-sixth of the children of the country might perhaps get a third of a pint of milk a day if their parents could afford to pay for it. I wonder if any hon. Member here who has a child suffering from lack of milk and saw it being given to the pigs would be satisfied with that assurance. Now we find that the children of the poorer Income Tax payers come off worst to-day, because it is not only that they are given nothing, but that their parents are, so to speak, punished for having them, because they would have received a very much more substantial remission of taxation if they had not, comparatively——

Mr. MABANE: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the parents would receive allowances if they did not have children?

Miss RATHBONE: No. I am suggesting that they would have received back a greater proportion of the sacrifice they made in 1931 if they had not had children. I am pointing out that this is not restitution in proportion to sacrifice, but exactly the opposite; it is restitution in inverse ratio to sacrifice. Those who have sacrificed most are getting back least—actually, because they gave least, but also proportionalely least.
The third reply which the Financial Secretary gave was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to choose between two things. He could restore the standard rate, or he could restore the rate of allowances, and he chose to restore the standard rate, because he believed that it would give a greater stimulus to industry and that therefore a larger proportion of the community would gain. On that question I speak with some humility, because I do not call myself an expert on industry, but I have listened very carefully to the argument in favour of the proposition advanced both from the Treasury bench and from
the supporters behind that bench, and they have failed to convince me. What is the use of giving a fillip to those who are in business by cutting down their taxes if you fail to give the best sort of stimulus of all, and that is a greater demand for the products of industry? I can imagine nothing which would have had a more direct influence upon the demand for the primary products which are suffering from the greatest depression in trade than to put more purchasing power into the hands of the smaller Income Tax payers, the men with families, the unemployed, and all the lower paid people. What would become of the extra £5, £10, or £15 a, year in the hands of those people? Would it not be spent on more coal, more textiles, more dairy produce? If money is put into the hands of the well-to-do or even of the moderately-well-off bachelor, he may invest it, saving up for the future, abroad, or he may spend it on luxuries, but money put into the hands of people with heavy family responsibilities and on the borderline of poverty is spent on the products of those industries which are suffering the heaviest depression to-day—the agricultural industry, the mining industry, and the textile industry.
I do not think anybody who listened to some of those touching speeches broadcast over the wireless by people who explained how they were spending their tiny unemployment insurance, and noted how tragically little they had to spend on the necessaries of life, can have failed to realise how, in addition to the enormous boon it would be to those people if a little more money could be put into their pockets, it would be a very great stimulus to the industries of this country. The same thing on a rather different level is true of the Clause we are now discussing. I realise that we are not going to get that Clause, because, as several hon. Members have pointed out, it would cost a large sum of money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made his choice. He could have done one of two things, or he could have done half of each. He chose to reduce the standard rate, and he is not likely to go back on that, but there are more concessions that he could have made, and I hope that, before the Report stage, he will consider whether he will not make one or other of them. In the meantime, I think we should be glad to hear from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a statement which will be more
convincing to himself as well as to us than those he has given us hitherto, on how he reconciles the working out of the reduction of the standard rate of tax, unaccompanied by the restoration of family allowances, with the principle of restitution in proportion to sacrifice. I can imagine the effective ridicule that he would have poured upon that inconsistency if he had been still sitting where he sat two years ago on this side of the House.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: We are not concerned here with redressing all the anomalies that may exist under the Income Tax law. We are in this Finance Bill making some restitution to those who made sacrifices in 1931.

Miss RATHBONE: But not in proportion.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is with regret only equalled by surprise that I heard the Government represented by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) as actually taking something away from someone. No one is losing anything as a result of this Finance Bill. On the contrary, every direct taxpayer in the country is having his burden reduced by 10 per cent. That, at any rate, is something. I have previously admitted to the Committee that there is room for a legitimate difference of opinion as to whether it would have been wiser to restore the standard rate of Income Tax to 4s. 6d. or whether to restore the allowances to the level at which they stood at 1931. There is a legitimate difference of opinion, and it has been naturally represented in this Debate, which is one of a whole series which have taken place on the subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer—and he was supported naturally by the Government—took the view that the psychological effect of a reduction in the standard rate of Income Tax would be greater and that the industrial benefits would be more widespread than if he restored the allowances. After all, the allowances affect a limited number of persons, but the standard rate affects all persons. If it could be shown—and it has not been shown—that those in the lower ranges of income with family responsibilities were suffering severe hardships under our In-
come Tax code, there might be much, more to be said for the proposed new Clause, but the Committee is aware that, so generous is our system of allowances and reliefs, that of the 8,000,000 people who have incomes within the taxable limit, 4,500,000 are exempt from tax altogether, and do not have to pay anything.
When you come to the individual families such as those whose cause the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) has espoused, you find that the burden on them is really extremely slight. It is easy to talk about this matter in general terms, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) did. It is easy, when you have great rhetorical powers, to paint a general picture of misery and suffering, but it is not the case that the allowances system is unjust. I explained to the House on a previous occasion that it does not seem generally to be realised that a man with £400 a year income and three children pays only £4 10s. a year tax altogether. That is the maximum rate of tax which he can be called upon to pay. It is probable he has an insurance policy and he may be entitled to other reliefs. If he has an insurance policy with a premium of £20 per annum, the sum that he pays to the State is only £2 5s. A man with £500 a year income and three children who has a life insurance policy of £30 a year, makes provision towards the expenses of running the country of only £10 per year.

Sir P. HARRIS: There is indirect taxation as well.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: We are discussing direct taxation, and the case as represented to the Committee. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness, in a charming and convincing speech, spoke of the principles of graduated Income Tax. Those principles are embodied in the Income Tax law, and it is important to observe, when calling attention to individual cases, that the standard rate of tax is not the effective rate of tax. In the case of the man with £400 a year and three children, the effective rate is 2½ in the £; with £500 and similar responsibilities, 6½d.; with £600 a year, 10d.; and with £700 a year, 1s. 3d. We have to go up to incomes of £4,000 a year before we get to the
standard rate of tax, so carefully is the rate of tax graduated from an effective rate of 2½d. to an effective rate of 12s. 1½d. in the £. Therefore, I say that no ease has been made out showing that these people are suffering intolerable burdens.
I do admit that there is much to be said for a restitution of the allowances. It may be that our financial resources of the future will permit us to make it. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) forecast a Budget surplus large enough to enable us to make part of these restitutions with confidence. It is satisfactory to know that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane), who made so well-informed a speech, are so confident of the success of our policy. I do not lack confidence in that policy, but I prefer to know that we have the money before we start to distribute it. There are many claims upon the national resources, and I do not think that anyone can complain if, as a result of such careful husbandry, my right hon. Friend has been able, at any rate, to reduce the standard rate of tax. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Fulham on the persistence with which he has advocated his case, and I hope that such credit as may attach to him may only be postponed for a short time. If in future it should be possible to grant what he asks, we shall only have to look back upon his speeches for all the arguments as to the beneficence of the course we shall then be able to take.

5.53 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been unable to be present this afternoon in the discussions on the proposed new Clauses of the Opposition. It is an occasion when the Chancellor of the Exchequer generally takes the trouble to be present. I am certain he must be away from the House for the whole evening, because, of course, he will not come in when the Government back bench new Clauses are being discussed, having been absent while the Opposition new Clauses were being discussed. That would not be in accordance with the courtesy with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer customarily shows to the Opposition. I am especially sorry at his absence, because
this proposed Clause is one which we consider of great importance, and one which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury always manages to avoid arguing. No doubt he realises that there is no possible argument that can be put forward to support the Government's case. In the few remarks he has just addressed to the Committee he entirely omitted to deal with the fact that these concessions, as they are called, these allowances, were taken away as a matter of emergency in 1931. We are not discussing the question at the moment as to whether or not the whole structure of Income Tax charging is as good or as bad as it might be. We are discussing whether, if some concession is to be made to the taxpayers, it would not be more equitable, in view of what happened in 1931, to make that restoration to those Income Tax payers who are less well off.
No argument has been put forward by the hon. Gentleman to show that there is either justice or common sense in the attitude adopted by the Government. He says that the Government believe that the psychological effect of the 6d. off the standard rate will be more satisfactory. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied now that it is more satisfactory? I understand that the latest returns from the distributive trades show a falling off of 3 per cent. in the business that has been done in the last month, so that, apparently, a psychological kick has not got through to the distributive trades.

Mr. MABANE: Is that not solely due to the difference in the incidence of Easter and Whitsuntide this year?

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am not certain that it is. Trade does not show any marked increase. I am sure that the hon. Member will be devastated if 6d. off the Income Tax does not have the effect which he has always preached that it will have. All I am pointing out is that you at least cannot prove——

Mr. MABANE: The hon. and learned Gentleman's figures are false. Let me give thorn for the year.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not wish to have the figures for the year.

Mr. MABANE: Because they snow 1.7 increase.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Member is over-anxious to show his enthusiasm for
a reduction in the Income Tax. The fact is that during the last month, which is the only month which could have shown the psychological effect of the reduction, the figures do not show an increase in the distributive trades. You cannot therefore show from that index figure that the psychological effect has been good. It may not prove that it has been bad, but you cannot prove it has been good. I am asking the Financial Secretary whether he is satisfied that, taking the 6d. off the standard rate, has given that kick to industry which would show it had had the psychological effect it was intended to have. There would be a better reaction from industry if these allowances were put back to their original position rather than if 6d. were taken off the standard rate. The 6d. has gone off the rate now, and the question is whether, in addition, it would not be wise, having done that which we think so inequitable as to give to the large Income Tax payer the greatest benefit, to make some concession as regards the allowances so as at least, to try to right the iniquity of which the Government have been accused and of which they are unable to give any reasonable answer or explanation.
The Financial Secretary said that, after all, these people who have not got very much do not pay very much. That is one of the principles of taxation, and we have to examine what they have left to live on which is the material thing so far as the ordinary human being is concerned or so far as the hon. Gentleman himself is concerned. He is concerned primarily with how much he has left to live on, and I think, if he examines his accounts and Income Tax payments, he will find he has very much more left than the gentleman with three children and a wife of whom he gave an illustration, who has £395 10s. a year left to live on. The criterion when you are judging whether a man can afford to pay is how much he will have left when he has paid, and it is no argument to say that a man who is badly off has to pay only £4 10s. a year. That is no criterion as to whether it is fair to charge him that. The question is what he has left over compared with the man who starts with £2,000 or £5,000 a year. If it is examined from that point of view it must be abundantly clear that the right thing to have done as regards this remission of Income Tax would have
been to have allowed the remission to those people who are least able to pay, and not to have allowed the large incidence of the remission to go into the hands of those people who are best able to bear the burden of direct taxation. That is the main complaint we have to make as regards the methods which have been adopted by the Chancellor in this matter. We shall certainly go into the Lobby in support of the Clause.

6 p.m.

Mr. MABANE: May I say one word in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he has used some figures concerning an industry about which I do not think he has any first-hand knowledge, as I have? Referring to the retail distributive trade, he said the figures for May show a reduction of 3.8. If he had been honest he would have said that the figures for the whole year show an increase. Also, if he had known about the trade, he would have known that every person engaged in the retail distributive trade at the beginning of this year budgeted for a substantial fall in May, solely on account of the difference in the incidence of Whitsuntide; and he would know, further, that the returns for the early days of June show a substantial increase in retail distribution throughout the country.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Gentleman does not yet appreciate the point which I made. Perhaps he will when he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow—if he is careful. The early figures of this year have no bearing whatsoever on the effect of the Budget. Even the distributive trades are not so clever as the hon. Gentleman, and they could not foretell what was going to be in the Budget. All I said was—and it is a perfectly obvious fact, I should have thought—that no figures published since the Budget show any psychological reaction in the distributive trades as a result of the reduction of 6d. in the Income Tax.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I think that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in presenting the psychological effects of different forms of taxation, has not shown an acute psychological sense himself. He says that the Government are not taking anything away. I put it to him that when, at a very recent date,
comparatively, people have had something taken away from them, and when the time for restoration comes that restoration is not made on a strictly proportional basis, the effect on the people of not getting what they conceive to be their due is precisely the same as though they had had something taken away at this moment. I think that should always be borne in mind. A point made in an interjection by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) was treated very much too lightly by the Financial Secretary when he was talking about the case of the man who pays £4 10s. He ought to remember the indirect taxation that is paid, because if we are treating a class who, before we come to direct taxation, have already paid out of their incomes a very large amount, proportionately, in indirect taxation, it becomes a question at once of whether these particular people can afford to pay anything else at all. That must be borne in mind.
I am very glad that the principle of this Amendment has the support of the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane). I want to ask them through you, Sir Dennis, where they stand now that this Amendment has been refused by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I sympathise

with him, because when things have to be refused it is he who refuses; when things are to be granted, they are given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is like the parson's wife in "Candida." By his refusal of this Amendment he has undoubtedly turned down the Amendment under the names of my hon. Friends opposite which appears later on the Order Paper. They may say that the hon. Member on this side was opening his mouth too wide, and that they are more modest, but it is clear that the Financial Secretary is not going to put anything into anybody's mouth in this matter, and I hope they will see that now that the whole principle for which they contended has been turned down, there is only one course for them to take, and that is to make some effective protest. The weighty words of the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon were that the social balance of this Budget is wrong when it is taken into consideration with leaving the debt on the Unemployment Fund. That factor still remains, and if he regards it as a matter of first-class importance, I hope that he and the hon. Member for Huddersfield will show their disapproval in the only way possible in this House.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 301.

6.15 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parkinson.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. I would like to know why you are not at this stage calling my new Clause—(Reduced rate of Entertainments Duty)? I understand that another new Clause is to be called later on, but why should that be so when ours was the first, according to the Order Paper? I am informed on high authority that a new Clause on page 1372 is to be called, but we are only now at page 1362, that is, a difference of 10 pages.

The CHAIRMAN: The only reason that I can give the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is that his Clause is not selected. If he were in my place he would appreciate that I can give no reason for that. Perhaps I may tell the hon. Member that probably—at least, it is the present intention of the Chair to select another new Clause on the same subject later on, and the hon. Gentleman may then be able to present his views.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Are the Committee to understand that the question of the Entertainments Duty will be discussed at some time during the Committee stage?

The CHAIRMAN: It is quite impossible for me to say certainly; it depends upon how long hon. Members take in discussing other matters. It is certainly the intention of the Chair to take one new Clause dealing with that matter.

Sir S. CRIPPS: May I respectfully suggest that if an official Opposition Amendment is down on the point there is a custom that that Amendment should be called in preference to a similar back bencher's Amendment from the Government side?

The CHAIRMAN: No, we do not recognise anything of the kind. Selection lies with the Chair, and I cannot recognise any such restriction on that right. There is a method adopted by the Chair and well recognised by those who have occupied or do occupy the Chair at the present time, and that we follow to the
best of our ability. Perhaps I may add that I did not realise that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs was one of the people whose names are understood to mean that any Amendment to which they appear is an official Amendment of the Opposition.

Sir S. CRIPPS: On that point of Order. Would you be good enough to elucidate for future reference actually what is implied when you say that you do not recognise the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) as part of the official Opposition?

The CHAIRMAN: I did not say so. What I meant was that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) spoke of an official Opposition Amendment, and I always supposed that that meant an Amendment moved by or from the Front Opposition Bench.

Sir P. HARRIS: Might I raise another point of Order on the Ruling which you have just given? You said that a discussion of the Entertainments Duty depended upon the amount of time taken on other new Clauses. Is it suggested that whether you select a new Clause or not depends on how long we take over the Debate? We might have an extra day given to us.

The CHAIRMAN: I really cannot allow a continued discussion under the guise of points of Order on the duty of the Chair in selecting Amendments. The answer to the hon. Baronet's question is rather obvious. To put an extreme point: if the new Clause which I am now calling occupied the rest of to-night and the next new Clause occupied most of to-morrow night, there would be no time for many others to be discussed.

Sir P. HARRIS: Is it not exempted business, and could we not carry on a discussion all night?

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parkinson.

Sir P. HARRIS: Further to my point of Order. This is a very important question of principle. You have ruled that whether a Clause is to be called or not depends upon the amount of time taken over a particular Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: I have not ruled anything of the kind. I was stating what I thought was a fairly obvious fact, that I cannot take more than a certain number of Amendments. I am quite aware that this is exempted business. Perhaps I was wrong in not going more meticulously into the matter. I am afraid that the whole of this discussion clearly shows the evil of allowing a discussion on a matter which it is contrary to the procedure and practice of the House to discuss.

Mr. EVERARD: On a different point of Order. May I ask for your guidance. We are now about to deal with an Amendment dealing with the relief of duty on hydrocarbon oils. There are various other Amendments relating to the remission of that duty, particularly dealing with civil aircraft and other branches of industry. Would it be possible to allow a general discussion on the first Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that I cannot allow a general discussion on any particular new Clause to go outside that Clause.

NEW CLAUSE —(Relief from duty on heavy hydrocarbon oils to be extended to vessels on canals and inland waterways.)

Section seven of the Finance Act, 1933 (which provides relief from duty on heavy (hydrocarbon oils used as fuel for vessels in home waters), shall be extended to apply to such oils used as fuel for the machinery of a vessel engaged on a voyage on any canal or inland waterway.—[Mr. Parkinson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In the absence of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) I move the proposed new Clause relating to the duty on heavy hydrocarbon oil on vessels used on inland waterways. When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury moved the Clause last year which became Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1933, he made it perfectly clear that it would not apply to the inland waterways. He did not give any very elaborate reasons why the inland waterways should be excluded. He stated that seagoing vessels which travelled in, say, the Manchester Ship Canal, should receive the benefit of the concession,
but those on the ordinary inland waterways would be excluded. I do not know why the benefit of that Clause was withheld from the canal user. Transport by canal is one of the oldest forms of transport in this country. Canal carriers have suffered a good deal of competition from road and rail transport, but there is still a large amount of traffic carried by canal boats. Royal Commissions, one after another, have pointed out that canal and inland waterways traffic represents a substantial part of the national wealth, and I contend that canal users have a right to the concession which was given to vessels sailing in home waters.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will know that the Canal Carriers' Association represented to the Chancellor in the early part of this year that consideration should be given to this question. I hope he will be able to tell us the nature of the reply of the Chancellor to the Association. Despite the opposition with which the canal carriers have been faced, they have done what they can to improve general conditions on the inland waterways. Many of them had gone in for heavy-oil burning engines on their boats, but I am told that they have had to limit their activities on account of this duty. Many of them had commitments which they had to cancel because of the insecure position as to the taxation of the fuels that are used. Canal carriers are not saying that this tax is crippling their work, but that they are entitled to ask for the extension to them of the concession. They are in the main small people, and not big combines. They have not big reserves of capital behind them, but are struggling manfully against severe competition. The concession, given last year to vessels sailing in home waters, was worth about £100,000 a year. We did not oppose that concession. We supported the Clause because we believed that it was necessary. If the concession for which I am asking were allowed it would mean only about £5,000 in the financial year. That is the figure supplied to me.
The gist of our argument in favour of this Clause is that the canal carriers are struggling against severe competition with a good deal of success, and they feel that if the concession were granted to
them that it would be a means of stimulating them to greater activity. They feel that they are not being treated fairly. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has not been too generous with his concessions during the Committee stage of the Bill. He has opposed all of them because of what they would cost. In this case it would cost a mere matter of £5,000, which would be a direct help to the canal carriers and would stimulate the demand for engines burning heavy oil. I hope that on those grounds the Financial Secretary will accept the proposed new Clause.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. HANNON: The canal people have a grievance in respect of the imposition of this duty. Nobody in this country or in this House has done more to help the modern development of the canal system than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was Chairman of the Departmental Committee which inquired into the whole position of the modern canal system, and he made a series of very practical suggestions which helped the cause of transport on canals. He was Chairman of the National Council of Inland Waterways for a considerable time, and I succeeded him in that office. We carried on our work doing all that we could for the encouragement of canal transport. Agreements have been come to whereby a certain understanding has been established between the railway companies and canal users. So far as that agreement goes, it is entirely satisfactory, but it does not remove the burden which the canal people still have to bear in this duty on heavy hydrocarbon oils. The amount here involved is very small—only some £5,000 or £6,000—and it would be a gracious act on the part of the Financial Secretary if he could see his way to make this concession.
The canal system of this country has had to go through a very difficult and embarrassing time for generations, and at last it is coming into the region of profit-making as a transport organisation. The House of Commons has approved of very considerable guarantees for the improvement of the canal system of this country, but it cannot be made profitable unless some reasonable measure of consideration is given to the people who conduct transport on the canals. It is true that in one sense the canal is a competitor with
road transport, and the roads, of course, are the main source of the revenue that is available for such concessions as this, but I do not think it would be a very reasonable argument to say that, because the canal is a competitor of the road, it ought not to have some concession of this kind. If the Financial Secretary, who is not, perhaps, in so generous a mood in relation to these new Clauses as some of us would like, would take this matter into consideration, he might, perhaps, even of he cannot make the concession now, be able a little later to see his way to do so. Those who are engaged in this industry are a splendid, hard-working body of people, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would like to see them secured in their employment by any concession which he could possibly afford to grant them.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: One of the things from which we are suffering at present is congestion on the roads, which are not nearly big enough for the traffic that they have to carry, and our canals ought to help to relieve them of some of this heavy burden. It is the cheapest and heaviest kind of freight that is carried on the canals, and, as the Mover of the Clause said, they have great trouble to make a living. If they can do anything, as competitors of the roads, to lighten the burden on the roads, we ought to encourage them in every way to do so. The sum here involved is so small, and the benefit to a large number of hardworking people would be so great, in addition to the relief that would be afforded to our overburdened highways, that it would be in the public interest if the Government could see their way to grant this concession.

6.34 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I protest against the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when these important discussions are taking place. Everybody knows that it is only a Cabinet Minister who can make concessions in a Finance Bill Debate. I see that the First Lord of the Admiralty has come in, perhaps for the purpose of making concessions now that we are dealing with canals. I think that, when such important followers of the Government as the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) and the hon. and
learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) axe pressing the Government to make these concessions, it really is not fair to the Committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not be here. The Financial Secretary says that they have to take it in turn. I quite appreciate that, and nobody expects both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Gentleman to be on the bench all the time, but, when Opposition Clauses are being moved, we do expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be on the bench for some of the time, and so far this afternoon while Opposition Clauses have been put before the Committee, he has not been in the Chamber. Very shortly we shall be coming to Clauses moved from the back benches on the Government side, and then, I suppose, the right hon. Gentleman will condescend to come in.

6.36 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I do not want to differ from the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) on a question of procedure, but perhaps he will allow me, as an older Member of the House than he is, to put him right on this point. There is an historic precedent for the Financial Secretary making concessions. It will be remembered that, on the question of lighters, the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) took it upon himself, quite rightly, using his prerogative as the representative of the Treasury, to make a concession.
As has been pointed out, the amount here involved is a very small one, which is not going to upset the finances of the year, but it would be a help to an industry which has been going through very hard times, which has a very big struggle to exist, and which has felt very severely the competition of the roads. It would give that industry a chance to get on to sound lines. We have been asking for years for a revival of the use of canals, and the canals would be helped, more than by anything else, by the introduction of motor power in this particularly cheap and economical form. What is being asked for here is not new; it has already been conceded to boats using this fuel in home waters on our coasts. There are hundreds of barges plying round the coast, as well as fishing boats, that are given this concession, and it seems un-
reasonable that, when boats go up our inland waterways and help to cheapen the carriage of commodities which depend on economical handling, they shall not be given the advantage of this concession. Everyone knows that on the Continent, on the Rhine, and in Holland, there is a tremendous development of inland waterways, which carry big barges that can give very low freights for heavy metals like steel and iron, and so assist many industries that are going through a very lean time.
I suggest that this concession would be a little stimulus to the canal industry, and it would be a gesture on the part of the Government which would be much appreciated. That is why we are so sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here to deal with a problem which, when he was Lord Mayor of Birmingham, he made particularly his own. I do not suppose that any Member of the House has done more to further the interests of the canal industry than the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, and it would be a gesture which would be appreciated by these hard-working people if they could get this small help towards modernising the great canal industry of of this country.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) moved this Clause in a model manner. He was concise and persuasive, and I gathered that his real object was to elicit from me an explanation as to why it is that the heavy oil fuel used by coastal shipping is exempt from tax, whereas the oil used by motor barges on inland waterways and canals is not exempt. There is, of course, a plain distinction to be drawn between these two uses of oil. Coastwise shipping is subjected to foreign competition, and it was in order to rectify a patent injustice that a single exception was made to the solidarity of the Heavy Oils Duty last year.
Quite different considerations, of course prevail, inland. Not only is the inland transport not subjected to competition from abroad, but it is itself in competition with other kinds of transport by road and rail, and these two latter methods of transport enjoy no exemption from the Heavy Oils Duty, nor does this Clause ask that they should. Conse-
quently, the acceptance of the Clause would do a patent injustice. Moreover, not only have the two kinds of transport that I have mentioned to pay the Heavy Oils Duty, but, as far as motor transport is concerned, it is paying tax at the rate of 8d. per gallon on its petrol in addition. Further, and I think that this should be conclusive, the licence fees have recently been increased. The hon. Gentleman seemed to desire to elicit some such explanation, and I cannot help feeling that the Committee will regard it as convincing. The Committee may have been, and probably were, moved by the sentimental appeal—and no one can make these appeals more effectively than he—of my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon). We all know what a gallant fellow the bargee is, and what grand people those who conduct transport on the canals are, but that has nothing to do with the ease. The case is one of plain principle, and, much as we may admire those on whose behalf the plea is made, I trust that the Committee will support the Government in rejecting this Clause.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The only conclusion that one can reach, after listening to the Financial Secretary, is that the Government have made up their minds that they are not anxious that any transport should be conducted on our waterways at all, but consider that such transport is an undesirable development. The hon. Gentleman tells us that coastwise' traffic is in competition with foreign shipping, that our canal transport is in competition with road transport and with railway transport, and that, if a very slight concession such as the one now suggested were applied to motor boats on canals, it would be conceding to them something that would enable them to compete unfairly with the roads or with the railways. Surely, that can only lead one to the conclusion that the Government have made up their minds that the canals are an undesirable means of transport.
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman however, that the canals play a very important part in the transport of coal in various parts of Yorkshire, and I think also in some other parts of the country. Indeed, the very important town of Goole depends almost wholly upon canal transport,
and its population of 22,000 or 23,000 people may be affected unfavourably because the Government and the local authorities in divers ways have subsidised the making of roads. The railways, of course, are a totally different proposition from the natural waterways. If the advantage is to be against the canal all the time, clearly the canals will be given up, and a very useful means of transport will be denied to those who can make use of it. Quite recently, one of the collieries in my division has spent some £10,000 or £15,000 in making new locks and new sidings so as to render accessible the quickest transport, that is to say the canal, to the port of Goole. They conduct their operations very largely on the one horsepower system, with boats that carry, perhaps, 100, or 150, or 200 tons, but quite conceivably this small concession might be an inspiration to them to change their machinery and expedite their transport, which would be very useful in many ways.
I think that the hon. Gentleman has not given the subject the consideration to which it is really entitled. There have quite recently been discussions by the wise men of the country as to whether there ought to be a canal cut from Hull right through to Sheffield, but the hon. Gentleman does not want such a development. It would create a great deal of work and would provide an alternative means of transport which might be useful to the industrial population of Sheffield, but he says in effect, "No, we cannot do anything in the matter of canals, even to the extent of £5,000 per annum, because it would be unfair competition with the roads and the railways." I wish he would think again. I hope that, between now and Report he will invite the Chancellor to think again whether he could not grant this very small concession to assist one of our oldest means of transport, which may even yet prove to be one of the most useful in certain circumstances, and inspire them to change their machinery, using this sort of oil, which would expedite their transport system.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 61; Noes, 282.

Division No. 276.]
AYES.
[6.6 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Groves, Thomas E.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Rathbone, Eleanor


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Rea, Walter Russell


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton, Sir S. W. (Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harris, Sir Percy
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Cape, Thomas
Holdsworth, Herbert
Thorne, William James


Cooks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
West, F. R.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McGovern, John



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mallaileu, Edward Lancelot



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Apsley, Lord
Balniel, Lord


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Aske, Sir Robert William
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.


Albery, Irving James
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar


Alexander, Sir William
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Atholl, Duchess of
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B, (Portsm'th, C.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Belt, Sir Alfred L.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bernays, Robert


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Bilndell, James


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Borodale, Viscount
Hales, Harold K.
Patrick, Colin M.


Bossom, A. C.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Peake, Captain Osbert


Boulton, W. W.
Hanbury, Cecil
Pearson, William G.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Sir George


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hartington, Marquess of
Petherick, M.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Hartland, George A.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Bracken, Brendan
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(Wverh'pt'n. Bllst'n)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Pike, Cecil F.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Potter, John


Broadbent, Colonel John
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsford)
Pybus, Sir Percy John


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Radford, E. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Buchan, John
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Burnett, John George
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Butt, Sir Alfred
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rankin, Robert


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ray, Sir William


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Carver, Major William H.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Iveagh, Countess of
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Remer, John R.


Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Ker, J. Campbell
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Rickards, George William


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Ropner, Colonel L.


Clarry, Reginald George
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ross, Ronald D.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Law, Sir Alfred
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Colvllie, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Cook, Thomas A.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cooke, Douglas
Levy, Thomas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cooper, A. Duff
Lewis, Oswald
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Copeland, Ida
Liddall, Walter S.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Salt, Edward W.


Cranborne, Viscount
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Scone, Lord


Crossley, A. C.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Selley, Harry R.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Loftus, Pierce C.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Dickie, John P.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smiles. Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Drewe, Cedric
McCorquodale, M. S.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Duckworth, George A. V.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Somerset, Thomas


Duggan, Hubert John
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Edmondson, Major Sir James
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
McKeag, William
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Elmley, Viscount
McKie, John Hamilton
Spens, William Patrick


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stanley. Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Maitland, Adam
Stones, James


Fox, Sir Gifford
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Storey, Samuel


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strauss, Edward A.


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mayhew. Lieut.-Colonel John
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Meller, Sir Richard James
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Glucksteln, Louis Halle
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Summersby, Charles H.


Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gtn, S.)


Gower, Sir Robert
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Granville, Edgar
Moreing, Adrian C.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Morgan, Robert H.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Graves, Marjorie
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Greene, William P. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, William Shephard
Train, John


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Munro, Patrick
Tree, Ronald


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Turton, Robert Hugh




Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Wells, Sydney Richard
Womersley, Sir Walter.


Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Whyte, Jardine Bell
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord



Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Wayland, Sir William A.
Wise, Alfred R.
Commander Southby.


Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.
Withers, Sir John James

Division No. 277.]
AYES.
[6.47 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Banfield, John William
Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Rea, Walter Russell


Cape, Thomas
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Harris, Sir Percy
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Janner, Barnett
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Curry, A. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
West, F. R.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
Wilmot, John


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McGovern, John
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McKeag, William



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsford)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cook, Thomas A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cooke, Douglas
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Albery, Irving James
Cooper, A. Duff
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie


Alexander, Sir William
Copeland, Ida
Hornby, Frank


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Cranborne, Viscount
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Apsley, Lord
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cross, R. H.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Crossley, A. C.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davison, Sir William Henry
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Ker, J. Campbell


Balniel, Lord
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dickie, John P.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Kimball, Lawrence


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Knight, Holford


Beaumont, M. W. (Sucks., Aylesbury)
Drewe, Cedric
Knox, Sir Alfred


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Bernays, Robert
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Law, Sir Alfred


Bilndell, James
Eales, John Frederick
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)


Borodale, Viscount
Edmondson, Major Sir James
Lees-Jones, John


Bossom, A. C.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Boulton, W. W.
Elmley, Viscount
Levy, Thomas


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Liddall, Walter S.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Emrys- Evans, P. V.
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Bracken, Brendan
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Llewellin, Major John J.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Brass, Captain Sir William
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Loder, Captain J, de Vere


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Loftus, Pierce C.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt Hon. Sir John
Mabane, William


Burghley, Lord
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Burnett, John George
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Gower, Sir Robert
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Greene, William P. C.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Grimston, R. V.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Carver, Major William H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
McEwen. Captain J. H. F.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
McKie, John Hamilton


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Maitland, Adam


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hales, Harold K.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Hanbury, Cecil
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hartington, Marquess of
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Clarry, Reginald George
Hartland, George A.
Martin, Thomas B.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Meller, Sir Richard James




Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Rickards, George William
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Ropner, Colonel L.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Moreing, Adrian C.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Morgan, Robert H.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Summersby, Charles H.


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Tate, Mavis Constance


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n. S.)


Morrison, William Shepherd
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Munro, Patrick
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)
Thompson, Sir Luke


Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Salt, Edward W.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


O'Neill. Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Patrick, Colin M.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Train, John


Peake, Captain Osbert
Selley, Harry R.
Tree, Ronald


Pearson, William G.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Penny, Sir George
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Petherick, M.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bllst'n)
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Pike, Cecil F.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Potter, John
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Wayland, Sir William A.


Pybus, Sir Percy John
Somerset, Thomas
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Radford, E. A.
Somervell, Sir Donald
Wells, Sidney Richard


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Rankin, Robert
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Spens, William Patrick
Wise, Alfred R.


Ray, Sir William
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Withers, Sir John James


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Stones, James
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Storey, Samuel



Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Stourton, Hon. John J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Remer, John R.
Strauss, Edward A.
Sir Walter Womersley and Captain




Sir George Bowyer.

NEW CLAUSE —(Extension of s. 19 of Finance Act, 1920.)

Section nineteen of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by section twenty-two of the Finance Act, 1924 (which makes provision for a deduction in respect of relatives taking charge of widowers' or widows' children, and in respect of a person acting as housekeeper to a widower or widow), shall be extended so as to apply to a person resident with an unmarried person in the capacity of housekeeper.—[Mr. Lunn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
At one time, I believe, the only exemption that was given was in the, case of a wife, but in 1920 we provided that a relative living with a widower or widow, and in charge of children, should have the same exemption. In 1924 we extended that so as to provide that exemption should be provided in the case of any person acting as housekeeper for a widower or widow even though there were no children. Now I am moving that this allowance should be provided in the case of a housekeeper to an unmarried man or woman. In my opinion the best housekeeper is a good wife. I have no doubt on that point as far as I am concerned, but the hon. Gentleman himself may disagree with me. He is one of the
persons for whom I am seeking to provide. He has not taken a wife yet. Whether he has a housekeeper or not, I do not know. I hope he has, and a good one, and I hope he will be able to say he is prepared to make this concession because he has a good housekeeper. He is not alone. I do not say that there are large numbers of cases—I do not think there are—but we all know cases of young men or women who have lived all their lives with their parents, who have now passed away. They have always had a home. They have never been in lodgings, and they prefer to continue in the home that they have known all their lives.
I want to ask the hon. Gentleman what will be the cost of applying the Clause and, more than that, I want him to say that the Government will give this exemption and grant this small extension of the principle to persons who happen to be housekeepers to single men or women. There are large numbers of young men and young women in all kinds of occupations, not necessarily black-coated occupations, who have a housekeeper and do not feel inclined, or do not feel they ought, to get married. They may have good reasons for not getting married, but I do not know what they are. I hope that the Chancellor or the
Financial Secretary will grant this extension of the principle, the cost of which will, I think, be very small.

7.1 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I have not often the pleasure of supporting a Motion from the opposite side of the House, but I do so with all sincerity in the present instance. The law with regard to this allowance is quite indefensible. The present position is that some people who employ a housekeeper may claim the allowance and others may not, and the test is, not whether they require an allowance, but whether in the past they have been married and have since become either a widow or a widower. That seems a most absurd test to apply. These allowances under the Income Tax law ought to apply to people who are in a particular position of hardship. I have two cases from my own knowledge which will show the absurdity of the present law. One case is that of a batchelor aged 82, who enjoys an income of some £750 a year. He employs a housekeeper but is not entitled to housekeeper's allowance. The other case is that of a widow whose income is well over £10,000 a year. She employs a housekeeper and, because she is a widow, she is entitled to an allowance of £50. Does not that set forth the absurdity of this present system of tax?
I was less ambitious than the hon. Gentleman opposite, because, in the Clause that I have set down, I only proposed that these allowances should be given to batehelors who had at the commencement of the year of assessment reached the age of 65 years or upwards, or to bachelors or spinsters who were infirm. I only draw attention to that Clause in case the Chancellor says that he is not able to go the whole hog; if so, I hope that he will consider my Clause if he is not able to accept the Clause of my hon. Friend opposite.
I should like to read two sentences from a letter which I received last week. I do not know the lady at all. She says:
I am 75 years of age and have a very limited income. I live alone, and need care and attention. I cannot afford to pay a suitable person to live with me, my small income being taxed to the hilt. I sincerely hope that your proposal to enable poor spinsters like myself to be put in the same position as rich widows will be crowned with success. Life to unmarried women such as I am is cruelly hard, and there are many others who suffer in the same way.
I have given the case of the rich widow with £10,000 a year who gets an allowance of £50, and here is the case of a poor spinster who describes her condition as "terribly hard." I hope that these instances will wring compassion from the Chancellor, and that if he is unable to reconcile the allowance with common-sense he will at any rate agree to the Clause which I have suggested, if he is not able to accept the Clause moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am very grateful for the sage and parental advice given me by the hon. Gentleman who moved this Clause. To accept it would, of course, be a violation of those canons which my right hon. Friend is observing and intends to continue to observe in the distribution of any surplus; that those who made sacrifies in 1931 are to have the first claim upon any money that is available. I think the Committee will appreciate that. The present position with regard to these allowances is that they are given to a widow or widower with or without children, and to an unmarried person maintaining a widowed mother or other female relative to look after his young brothers or sisters. The Committee will therefore see that the principle of the housekeeper's allowance is the maintenance of an old home. The hon. Gentleman seeks to do away with this principle and to abolish the present restrictions. He would therefore make it possible for anyone, whether a young man or the old gentleman whose circumstances have just been described to us, to maintain a female person to look after him in his flat or house, as the case may be.
I am sure that the Committee will see that it would be difficult to introduce a principle such as that into the Income Tax code. It does not seem to me that it would be fair to give a man an allowance for the purpose of having a female person to look after him and to deny that same allowance to a man who lives in his club or a hotel or makes other arrangements for having his worldly comforts attended to. It does not seem to me—and I am sure that the Committee will concur—to be a right or proper thing to accept a Clause such as this. I should like to point out to the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) that this
Clause is in different terms from his own. His Clause, which appears later on the Order Paper, is far more restrictive: there the man has to be infirm or aged. That seems to me to be in quite a different sphere from that proposal in the Clause which we are now discussing, and which I hope I have convinced the Committee that it could not be proper to accept.

Sir W. DAVISON: I understand that my Clause is not going to be called. Would the Chancellor accept a Clause with those restrictions? I am sure that my hon. Friend opposite, in view of what you have said, would agree to accept the Clause that is down in my name.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I hoped that I had the concurrence of my hon. Friend when I opened my remarks with a recollection of the canons on which the Chancellor was proceeding in the distribution of any surplus which might be available. I said that any money that was available had to go first of all to those who had made sacrifices. Therefore, quite apart from the merits; of my hon. Friend's Clause, I am sure he will appreciate that it cannot be accepted.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 62; Noes, 273.

Division No. 278.]
AYES.
[7.10 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Granfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'. W.)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Rea, Walter Russell


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Groves, Thomas E.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cape, Thomas
Grundy, Thomas W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Cove, William G.
Hamilton. Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Harris, Sir Percy
Thorne, William James


Curry, A. C.
Janner, Barnett
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
West, F. R.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McEntee, Valentine L.



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mr. C. Macdonald.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cross, R. H.


Albery, Irving James
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.


Alexander, Sir William
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Burghley, Lord
Dawson, Sir Philip


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Burnett, John George
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Dickie, John P.


Apsley, Lord
Butt, Sir Alfred
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Drewe, Cedric


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Duckworth, George A. V.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Cassels, James Dale
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester City)
Dunglass, Lord


Balniel, Lord
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Eales, John Frederick


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Edmondson, Major Sir James


Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Elmley, Viscount


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Clarke, Frank
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Clarry, Reginald George
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Bernays, Robert
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Bilndell, James
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fox, Sir Gifford


Borodale, Viscount
Colfox, Major William Philip
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian


Bossom, A. C.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Boulton, W W.
Cook, Thomas A.
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Cooke, Douglas
Ganzonl, Sir John


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cooper, A. Duff
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Copeland, Ida
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Brass, Captain Sir William
Cranborne, Viscount
Goodman, Colonel Albort W.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Crooke, J. Smedley
Gower, Sir Robert


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crookshank, Col, C. de Windt (Bootle)
Graves, Marjorie


Greene, William P. C
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Salt, Edward W.


Grimston, R. V.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Maltland, Adam
Savery, Samuel Servington


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Selley, Harry R.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Hales, Harold K.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Martin, Thomas B.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Hartington, Marquess of
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Hartland, George A.
Meller, Sir Richard James
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Head lam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Mitchell, Harold (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Somerset, Thomas


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Henderson, Sir Vivian L, (Cheimsford)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Morgan, Robert H.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Spens, William Patrick


Hornby, Frank
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Kowitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Stones, James


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Munro, Patrick
Storey, Samuel


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Strauss, Edward A.


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Patrick, Colin M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Pearson, William G.
Summersby, Charles H.


Ker, J. Campbell
Penny, Sir George
Sutcliffe, Harold


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Petherick, M.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Kimball, Lawrence
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Thompson, Sir Luke


Knox, Sir Alfred
Pike, Cecil F.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Potter, John
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Law, Sir Alfred
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Train, John


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Radford, E. A.
Tree, Ronald


Lees-Jones, John
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Levy, Thomas
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Liddall, Walter S.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Lindsay. Noel Ker
Ramsbotham, Herwaid
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Rankin, Robert
Warrender, Sir victor A. G.


Llewellin, Major John J.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wayland, Sir William A.


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Held, David D. (County Down)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Loftus, Pierce C.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Remer, John R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Rickards, George William
Windsor Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Mabane, William
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Wise, Alfred R.


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Withers, Sir John James


McCorquodale, M. S.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Womersley, Sir Walter


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Worthington. Dr. John V.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter



McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Runge, Norah Cecil
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


McKeag, William
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Lieut.


McKie, John Hamilton
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The next Amendment which I select is the one in the name of the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) at the bottom of page 1363 of the Amendment Paper.

NEW CLAUSE —(Abolition, of excise duty on male servants.)

So much of sections eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-seven, thirty, and thirty-three of the Revenue Act, 1869, as relates to excise duty chargeable in respect of male servants, and to the taking out of a licencie for the employment of a male servant, and to the provisions and regulations observable in re-
spect of such employment, and to the penalties recoverable for the non-observance thereof is hereby repealed, and the said excise duty shall cease on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, and section thirteen of the Motor Car Act, 1903, and section ten of the Finance Act, 1921, which define, limit, or modify the meaning of the term "male servant" shall cease to have effect after the said date.—[Sir A. Powmall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.18 p.m.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) and my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), has regard to the duty on male servants, and I wish to relate it to some extent to the new theory of canon law as explained a moment ago by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid down that the first thing that had to be done was the restitution of the cuts of 1931, and he treated that as being a canon. I submit that this does not infringe upon the principle of canon law, because it has direct relationship with the amount of unemployment at the present time. The particular duty is really obsolete in its form, as was the window tax of two or three generations ago which was imposed at a time of big households and when there was relatively no unemployment at all. At the present time, unfortunately, we have 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 men unemployed, and I suggest that this particular taxation stops a certain number of people who might otherwise employ temporarily a male servant from doing so, because, in addition to the ordinary wages, there is this extra 15s. and the trouble of taking out a form, which has to be done by the individual concerned. Although the money involved—185,000 licences which cost roughly £140,000—is not very much, far less than the surplus for which the right hon. Gentleman has budgeted, it is a distinct deterrent to the employment temporarily of people who might otherwise find themselves back at work for the time being. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he can relate this to what I call canon law when the sum involved is relatively small. I think I am right in saying that, while he had £600,000 or £800,000 left when he balanced his Budget, he has made no inroads at all upon that sum, and I suggest that this is a suitable opportunity for making a small hole in the surplus which he anticipated. It would lead directly to the employment of an appreciable number of men who are not now employed.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. ALBERY: I have put my name down to this Clause, because I genuinely believe that it has some effect on the unemployment question. There are a great many people who occasionally give jobs to men out of work, and, when they
find that by so doing they are taxed, they cease to do it. It is not so much the amount of the tax as the worry of the thing and the question of having to take out a form. Apart from that fact, the tax is altogether out of date and ought to have been wiped out long ago. I have procured one of the forms supplied for those who have to pay this duty, and one has only to read it to realise how out of date it is. How many of us to-day keep masters of the horse, grooms of the chamber and clerks of the kitchen, and those sort of people? This tax was put on many years ago with the idea of preventing certain people from having too many personal retainers, but such circumstances no longer exist. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to do a really useful thing he should transfer this tax to the wearers of political liveries and those who wear red shirts or black shirts, and take it off the harmless body of people who to-day employ gardeners, chauffeurs and various other persons.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. HANNON: I join in the appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the incidence of this tax. In a great many cases employers who would take on men servants for a short period are prevented from giving employment to a particular person because of the irritating conditions, apart from the tax itself. I think that in many instances temporary jobs would be secured for men out of employment if this condition was not imposed. The antiquity of the tax is something which really ought to receive the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are living in an age in which new articles of taxation are arising almost every day both in volume and quantity, and an old tax of this kind, imposed in generations past, should be reconsidered by the Treasury in the light of present circumstances.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I rise to speak entirely for myself, though I think one or two of my hon. Friend take the same view upon this matter. I regard this tax as entirely an anachronism in these modern times, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this discreet way to get rid of it.

Major HILLS: I have long thought this tax to be obsolete. A constituent
of mine wrote to me to the effect that he had given employment to an unemployed man in his garden, and the next thing was that he received a demand note for the payment of 15s. tax. He asked me: "Is this the way to encourage us to employ the unemployed?" I certainly think it is not, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to sweep away this obsolete charge.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I should like to add my voice to those of hon. Members who in such admirably persuasive speeches, have urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to repeal this obsolete tax. The fact that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who has firmly refused every concession so far has retired from our deliberations and that the gracious figure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has re-appeared upon the scene is, I think, a hopeful portent, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to yield to the representations of hon. Members in all parts of the Committee on this subject.

7.24 p.m.

Miss HORSBRUGH: I also should like to support the Clause. I do so noticing that it will bring about greater equality between the sexes. It has been suggested that if the tax were removed it would help the unemployment problem. I agree, but I do not think that many people who have spoken to me on this subject need have fear that men will take the work at present done by women. I believe that it would help the unemployment problem because people might take on a man whom they have not employed before to do extra work. I do not think that these people will compete with women, who will be able to hold their own in this class of work. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this concession, which, I think, will bring back more men into employment, and in no way take away from the chances of women getting employment and keeping it.

7.25 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: There is one other class which I should like to mention to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is the ex-service man, who though perhaps not fit for heavy work, could, with his wife, take a joint situation in domestic service. These people are unable to get employment of this kind, because em-
ployers are rather against taking cut this licence.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I did not know what this Clause really meant before the discussion began. I gather that it means that anybody who employs a man servant has to pay 15s. as excise duty. One hears from all sides what a wonderful difference it will make if the tax is taken off. Surely we are a patriotic people, and I take it that there are many such who support this Clause. If it be only a question of 15s., is that fact likely to prevent any of them employing a man and so relieving unemployment? One would never have thought that such an argument as that would have been brought forward. If it be only a question of 15s. payable by people who are in a position to give employment, one would have thought that we should have been directing our attention to something better than trying to get such a provision repealed. I do not want it to be thought that everybody is in agreement with this Clause. I am not. The Budget surplus could be put to much better purpose than relieving people who are wealthy enough to be able to employ servants, and who ought not to be given a relief from taxation on these grounds.

7.27 p.m.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Those who have supported from so many quarters of the House the Clause which we are now discussing have adduced two arguments in favour of it. The first is that the tax stands in the way of employment which would otherwise be given to the unemployed, and the second is that it is an obsolete and irritating form of tax. As to the first, I must say I find it extremely difficult to believe that any great impression could be made upon our unemployment problem by relieving persons of the necessity of paying 15s. a year. With regard to the second, I do not think that I am disposed to dispute with my hon. Friends that this tax is in the nature of a survival from conditions which have passed away, that the amount of revenue which it brings in is exceedingly small, and that it does probably give rise to an amount of annoyance which is disproportionate to the revenue. But when I come to the practical question of what is to be done, I observe that no
one who has yet spoken has alluded to the demand as anything other than a payment into the Exchequer. My hon. Friend who moved the Clause is well aware that it is not a tax which falls into the Exchequer at all. It is a local taxation duty, and the proceeds of this tax fall into the exchequer not of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but of the county councils and the county borough councils. If this tax is to be repealed, how is the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give compensation to the county councils and county borough councils for the revenue of which they will have been deprived. There are very few of those councils where the amount of the revenue derived from this tax exceeds £3,000 a year, and how to find any formula which would enable one to compensate each county council and each county borough council for the revenue that it would lose if the tax were repealed, compensation which would fully meet the claims of the councils year by year, with changing conditions, passes my comprehension. I might perhaps remind my hon. Friend who has addressed his appeal to me that in February, 1934, the County Councils Association addressed a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject, in the course of which they said that they had unanimously passed the following Resolution:
That the Parliamentary and General Purposes Committee of the Association are not prepared, having regard to the opinions and information at their disposal, to recommend the abolition of the Male Servants' Licence Duty at the expense, of the rates.
A return was compiled from a questionnaire which was sent to the county councils of England and Wales, which showed that while there were 20 councils in favour of the repeal of the tax, without compensation, 37 were opposed to it, and three expressed no opinion. This is a matter to which I have given some consideration, because I should like to see the tax repealed, but I find it extremely difficult to find a way of doing it, and at the same time to keep the county councils and the county borough councils in the good temper in which we all desire to see them. I think that the best chance of making an arrangement which would be agreeable to both sides would be when the time comes for reconsideration of the block grants. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that that consideration takes place
in. 1937 and that at some appropriate time before then he might raise the matter again, when it might be possible to give it more practical consideration than I can see my way to give to it to-day.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Clause that I have selected stands in the name of the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel)—(Relief in respect of renewal of lease of business premises.)

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: In the absence of the hon. Member for Farnham I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member cannot move a new Clause on behalf of an absent Member.

NEW CLAUSE —(Amendment of 21 and 22 Geo. 5, c. 49, Second Schedule.)

(1) The following words shall be deleted from the Second Schedule to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1931:—
Exceeds 2d. and does
not exceed 2½d. … one halfpenny.
Exceeds 2½d. and
does not exceed 6d. one penny.
(2) This section shall come into operation on the sixth daw of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-four.—[Colonel Baldwin-Webb.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.36 p.m.

Colonel BALDWIN-WEBB: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I feel sure that I am speaking for a large body of opinion inside and outside the House when I urge my right hon. Friend to accept this new Clause. It is true to say that this tax on the very cheap seats has been contributed by a very poor class of people, and they have so far not been fairly dealt with under the Budget. The cost of this concession in a full year would be something in the neighbourhood of £1,700,000, while for the five months commencing November, if the new Clause came into operation, the cost would be £730,000, which is well within the amount of the surplus that has been arranged for. I do not intend to keep the Committee long, because many hon. Members would like to express their views on this subject, but I feel that this is a matter of very great importance and that it is a hardship,
because of the fact that it represents a tax of one-third on the cheaper seats, whereas on the more highly priced seats the tax is only 12½ per cent. It is grossly unfair that this differentiation should remain. The difference between the two percentages which I have quoted proves conclusively that the matter ought to be levelled up or dealt with in some fairer way.
The effect of this tax on employment must not be overlooked. There are many theatres in the poor parts of the country that are suffering very much. The proprietor of one theatre at Longton writes to say that his losses during last year amounted to £173, during which period he had to pay in tax no less than £605. In another case the loss was £57 during the year while the amount paid in tax was 453.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Member speaks of theatres. Does he mean picture theatres?

Colonel BALDWIN - WEBB: Yes. Another letter says:
The cinema which I control in the east end of this town has had during five months of the current year to pay entertainment duty amounting to £281, despite the fact that during the same period the theatre has been operating at a loss of £275. It will be obvious to you as a business man that a small undertaking of this kind cannot much longer be carried on under such conditions, and unless some relief is given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the theatre must close, with resulting loss to the local rates, and consequent unemployment.
It is the small man who is hit more than anybody else by this tax. I hope therefore that my right hon Friend will see his way to accept the new Clause.

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: On a point of Order. Is it intended to call the new Clause which stands in my name and the names of other hon. Members—(Exemption of stage plays, etc., from Entertainments Duty)? If not, will it be permissible to put forward the arguments in favour of that Clause on this occasion. The arguments are totally different.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have noted the new Clause to which the hon. Member refers, and I had marked it in my list as a matter to which I would give consideration after I had listened to the Debate on this Clause. It would be best to keep strictly to the Amendment now
before the Committee, and we will consider the hon. Member's Clause later in view of what may emerge in this discussion.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: May I suggest that the arguments in favour of the present Amendment are totally different from the arguments in favour of remission of taxation on stage plays. The arguments in relation to the cinema would not be arguments which apply to the theatre. Is it, therefore, possible for you to make up your mind on arguments which are not relevant to a discussion on the taxation of stage plays?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that all relevant considerations will be taken into account.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) had a Clause down earlier on the Order Paper dealing with this subject, but for some reason with which we are not acquainted the Chair was not able to accept that Clause. Therefore, we are compelled to fall back upon supporting the present Clause. I am in entire agreement with the proposal submitted by the hon. and gallant Member. I am not quite sure whether his figures are strictly accurate, nor am I able to controvert them. I take it that he has had information available to him which is denied to me and that the figure which he gave is dependent, and that we may assume that the adoption of the new Clause would involve a cost of something like £750,000 for the remaining portion of the year. Some of us represent areas which are regarded as depressed. My own constituency is one of that unfortunate number, and I am sure that I am expressing the views of other hon. Members who represent depressed areas when I say that one of the tragedies that we see is that one of the means which the unemployed person has of obtaining some form of relaxation in the evenings is, I will not say entirely but very frequently closed to him.
The hon. and gallant Member has pointed out that the Entertainments Duty in so far as it affects the low priced seats has a good deal to do with the closing or otherwise of certain cinemas. It is possible that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to argue, and
if so I shall not be able to contradict it, that that kind of argument is exaggerated and that the reason for the closing of these cinemas is not entirely attributable to the incidence of the Entertainments Duty; but I think it cannot be denied that the Entertainments Duty in its relation to the low priced seats has an effect upon the keeping open or closing of cinemas. I think the hon. and gallant Member was right when he said that we are concerned not with the affluent proprietor, but with the man who is in the cinema business in a very small way, the person who has, a limited sphere of operations and who, because of the limited resources at his command, must necesarily secure the whole-hearted sympathy of the Committee.
We must look upon the cinema with increasing interest. It is a growing industry and we are extremely glad to note that it is providing in an increasing degree employment in our own country. Happily, we are becoming less and less dependent upon foreign films than we used to be. Therefore, it is very important that as far as we can we should do nothing to arrest this most important development in the entertainment world. We are all very concerned about the deleterious effect of unemployment upon the mass of the people, especially the younger people. I am not here to say that all the fare provided at the cinemas is commendable in every way, far from it, but if I were asked whether it is better from the point of view of the community that the younger people should be in the cinemas, even where the fare is not as excellent as we would like it to be, or roaming the streets aimlessly, sometimes getting into mischievous pranks, I would at all times prefer that they should go to the cinema because the worst form of entertainment, or rather I should say the least desirable form of entertainment does oppose virtue against vice and the hero against the villain, and provides a medium by which the moral virtues are stimulated. From the standpoint of those who have to go through the bitter experience of unemployment it is well worth while encouraging the retention of cinemas in distressed areas.
Let me make one further point, not for the sake of being controversial; that is not my object at all. I submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is
high time this industry should have some measure of sympathy from him. We, have made concessions to various groups of individuals and to various trades during the last year or two through our financial Bills, and I am convinced that this industry has a special claim upon us because of the extreme difficulty they have to exist in certain portions of the country. The Entertainments Duty is imposed upon the turnover, not on the profits of the cinema. If that is so then it becomes a particularly onerous Duty to sustain, especially when a man happens to be operating on a very narrow margin of profit or loss. I am sure if the Committee were free to express its mind regardless of the presence of Government Whips or the eloquence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would vote almost unanimously for a repeal of this taxation but, of course, the Chancellor of the ffxchequer must have regard to the finances of the country and I cannot complain if he puts that point of view forward. At the same time, the Clause has very strong claims on its merits, and I look forward to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he is prepared to accept it.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. HANNON: I rise to add my word to what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for the Wrekin Division (Colonel Baldwin-Webb). The new Clause simply means the removal of the duty from seats under 6d., and in that respect it makes a concession to a very large number of the poorer population of the country who seek some form of relaxation in the evenings from the sometimes sordid surroundings of their homes. We have heard deputations during the past few years presenting to us some pitiable examples of the evil wrought by the imposition of this duty. I am the last person to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to violate the exalted canons of taxation laid down by the Financial Secretary, but I would suggest that this is a question of enabling the masses of our poor people to enjoy some of the amenities of life in congenial surroundings, and I hope it is a proposal which will appeal to his generous sentiments. We have had statements made to us by various cinema organisations as to the hardship which is caused by the imposi-
tion of this tax in small rural cinemas, and I have no reason to challenge their statements. My sympathy is with the poor people, the poor children especially, whom I should like to have the fullest opportunity to enjoy the advantages for recreation and education which the cinema now affords, because the quality of the exhibits in the cinemas of the country has undergone considerable improvement in recent times, their educational value has been substantially improved.
I know the difficulty the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in balancing the finances of the nation, and nobody appreciates more his wonderful contribution to the stability of our national finance. But I think this is a case in which he might, if he cannot make the whole concession, make some concession, and if not at once will be able to give some indication that in the future he will take into careful examination the arguments which have been submitted to him in favour of a remission being made, not for the sake of cinema proprietors or those who speculate, but for the sake of those who enjoy them.

7.52 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Whatever view the Chancellor of the Exchequer may take of the Clause, I hope the Committee will not let this opportunity go of informing him how widespread is the feeling against this duty on the lower-priced seats in cinemas. None of us in happier times would like to see an Entertainments Duty at all, still less a tax on the entertainments of the poorest classes of the people; we should all desire at the earliest opportunity to see the burden lifted, beginning with the lower-priced seats. I think the Committee ought to remember that there are a great variety of cinemas throughout the country. There are the rich and wealthy cinemas in London and the poor little struggling cinemas in country districts which find the greatest difficulty in keeping open. I should like to read a letter from a cinema proprietor in my own constituency, a poor and a small constituency. He says:
Last year the entertainment tax paid was £100 less than the year before"—
That will not please the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it means that the
amount which he will hand over to the Treasury is much less.
This year the returns show even less. Out of every £35 paid in tax to the Government we pay out of our own pockets £25. If we were to increase the price to include the tax the number of attendances would decrease to such an extent that we would be forced to close the cinema for at least two nights in the week, which would lead to two or three people becoming unemployed.
In that case the proprietor is paying the tax out of his own pocket. He cannot put it on to the lower-priced seats because it would keep people away altogether. If the attendance continues to decrease, it means that the cinema will have to close on two or three nights in the week and people will thus be deprived of the opportunity of going. That is a point which I think should be borne in mind. Cinemas in out of the way country districts have difficulties to contend with which are not met with in populous areas. In large and populous areas there is a large field to draw upon and cinemas can count on having valuable houses every day in the week, but in small areas, where there is only a small population to draw upon, if you get over the line and prevent a cinema paying it means that the opportunities are speedily reduced. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give his attention to this matter and will bear in mind the difficulties of small cinemas in the country.

7.56 p.m.

Miss HORSBRUGH: I should like to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer how very hardly this duty works on cinema proprietors in depressed areas and also on the people in depressed areas. In some of the depressed areas cinema proprietors are now just carrying on and waiting to see if some relief will be afforded. In many cases they will not be able to continue to keep the cinema open if the duty is still imposed. Hon. Members may think that 1d. on the 3d. is a small amount, but I ask them to remember that these particular cinemas cater only for the very poor and are the only cinemas which have tickets at 3d. and 6d. For many people in congested areas where bad housing conditions exist, cinemas are almost a necessity. Where are these people to go? It may be said that they can go into the country, but they will not be able to go far into the country and return for 3d. I have
been told also that the addition of 1d. on the 3d. is making a great deal of difference in this way. It is much more economical for the whole family to go to the cinema than for one ox two members to stay at home, because that means that lighting and heating must be provided. Those who do not come into contact with these poor people may not realise the position, but those who do know how the small amount of money which is put into the gas meter is counted out, and, if there is no lighting or heating in the home, the family can go to the cinema and get some form of entertainment which, though it may not be of the very best, is an entertainment, and they are able to sit there and for the time being forget their troubles and worries outside.
In these difficult times the cinemas in these poor districts are playing an important part. We have suggested regulations for various forms of entertainment and various places, where we think people may perhaps spend too much money in betting, but, if we let them go to the cinema for 3d., they know exactly the amount of their outlay, and they will find there entertainment and warmth, and to some extent oblivion from their worries. If the duty were remitted, it would be of great assistance to people who have not much hope of employment or better times. The hon. and gallant Member for the Wrekin Division (Colonel Baldwin-Webb) has pointed out the sum involved for three-quarters of the year. We shall, of course, have to face the sum which will be required for an entire year next year, but I would point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if by next year employment has improved a great many more people will be going to the more expensive seats, and he will get his revenue in that way. We are only asking for the duty to be remitted on the poorest and cheapest seats. If more money is in circulation, then, no doubt, more people will go to other forms of entertainment of a higher nature, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will get more money back by that means. For these reasons, I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to realise the great benefit it would be not only to the cinema interest, not only to the managers and owners of cinemas in distressed areas, but to the ordinary man and woman and their
families, who are up against misery and despair, living in houses which are unfit for habitation, and who are only too thankful now and then to spend an evening away from their house at places of entertainment such as these.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I desire to associate myself with the appeal to the Chancellor. In working-class areas the cinema receipts have gone down considerably because people have not been able to enjoy the entertainment which they had enjoyed in the past. My general experience is that throughout the country it was anticipated that in the Budget this year there would be some relief afforded in regard to the cheaper seats at cinemas. Those who pay the tax on the lower-price seats include unemployed people in a tremendous number of areas. Take the average family of a man and wife and three children, boys of 8, 10 or 12 years of age. Out of national funds or unemployment funds a sum of 2s. per week is allowed for each child to cover maintenance. I hold that part of the ordinary maintenance of a working-class family is the provision of some entertainment for those who are living such drab lives. To say that the Budget of this country can be balanced only by the extraction of halfpennies and pennies from the meagre 2s. that goes to these homes for the maintenance of the children, is to say what I do not believe.
I regard it as part of my ordinary life to spend two afternoons or evenings of the week at the pictures. It is a welcome relief from parliamentary and political troubles. If I were not to have that opportunity of entertainment and satisfaction I should regard life as a very dreary thing indeed. Since pictures have become part of the ordinary entertainment of the people I have spent one evening, and sometimes three evenings a week, at various cinemas, with my wife and family. I regard it as highly desirable that people should have that entertainment. We know what the demoralising effects of unemployment are in this country, and we should welcome opportunities being given to the working-classes for relief that will raise them out of their environment, so that even if they cannot enjoy life much themselves they can see in the pictures how other people enjoy themselves.
For a number of years in Glasgow we have had, with increasing unemployment, gang fights, young men in one area getting into conflict with those of another area. We have struggles in the streets, as the result of which people go to the police courts and get into prison, not because they are criminally minded but because they have not a proper opportunity for getting open-air recreation and entertainment, or even indoor entertainment, during their unemployment. Anything that helps to lessen that tendency to gang warfare and criminal hooliganism in our cities and takes people to the picture houses and open-air sports, ought to be encouraged. Instead of lessening such opportunities by penal taxes on the lower-priced seats at cinemas we ought to give those seats complete freedom.
I do not plead for the right of owners of cinemas to make higher profits. It is no part of my duty to defend their interests. But I am a realist. The proprietors of cinemas generally have tried to make their houses attractive. The cinemas are clean and orderly, and they provide fairly good fare. I have heard in various parts of the country expressions of antagonism towards certain pictures. But I disagree. I have had as complete an opportunity as any Member of this House of visiting cinemas, and I have found the entertainment generally clean, attractive, educational and stimulating, and therefore I appeal to the Chancellor to give some consideration to those who are hardest hit by unemployment in the depressed areas.

8.8 p.m.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I support the arguments which have been brought forward in the appeal to the Chancellor to give some relief to the lower-priced seats in the cinemas, not because I am opposed in any way to the principle of Entertainments Duty, but because this tax is hitting very hard the poorest of the people, who are less and less able to afford a seat at the cinema. I have been told by proprietors of these low-priced cinemas that there is not the slightest question that since the imposition of this tax the attendance of poor people has very much decreased. They are not able to afford the payment, and they are being deprived of a legitimate form of entertainment. I would also emphasise what has been mentioned, namely, the very
important part which the cinemas play in the lives of very poor people not only from the entertainment point of view but because in the winter time there is no other place to which they can go to get any warmth. They can go into a cinema and enjoy the entertainment, and at the same time get warmth. It is difficult for many to realise that when people are not able to afford sufficient clothing or sufficient food to keep them warm and cannot buy sufficient fuel to warm their rooms it is an enormous boon to them to be able to go to the cinema. I hope that the Chancellor will see his way to remove the tax from the low-priced seats at cinemas, not from the point of view of yelping the cinema houses, except where the incidence of the tax has made the proprietor close down, but chiefly because the tax is imposing very severe hardship upon the poorest people of the country.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to add my appeal to the Chancellor. We appealed to the right hon. Gentleman almost successfully last year. He then said that he did not believe in halving the business and that he must either give nothing or give all, that is as far as seats up to 6d. are concerned. But this matter affects not only the cinemas. It affects three different matters that I will mention. To begin with, it affects junior football clubs very badly. The officials of the game are carrying on at a great loss. There is nothing professional about them; they give all their time because they believe in sport and in encouraging athletes. I am informed on the best authority that they have now great difficulty in getting as good athletes as formerly, because they have to deal with the products of the War. Therefore, they require even more consideration than formerly. What is to happen if we put a trammel on the attendance at junior football matches? I have the data here, but as many others want to speak I will not give them. I ask the Chancellor seriously to consider the matter.
I have here also, from the Glasgow City Council, particulars of open-air concerts given on week nights and on Saturday afternoons. The particulars show that as a result of the Entertainments Duty the receipts have dropped by thousands of pounds, and the council are
considering the necessity of having to stop the concerts. Coming to the cinemas, here is a quotation from the "Glasgow Evening News," anything but a Labour paper. On Wednesday 6th June, 1934, it says, in reference to the constituency of the Secretary of State for the Home Department:
There is a cinema in Pollokshaws known as the Palladium. It would be more correct to use past tense for it closed on Saturday. That fact will not concern the average picture-goer. He has dozens of other shows to choose from, so why worry about a little theatre that has only been struggling anyway P But human tragedy is associated with the closing of the Palladium. It is a story that should touch the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, particularly as he is the person primarily responsible for the little snow's failure. A decent hard-working couple and their two children are the latest victims of this iniquitous Entertainments Tax.
That is from a Tory paper. That is not from the "Daily Herald," and there are thousands of cases like that up and down the country. The sad thing about this is that it is only the poor who are affected as far as the cinemas are concerned. That is why great pressure is not being brought to bear on the Chancellor of the Exchequer such as would otherwise be brought to bear upon him. If the cinematograph proprietors were as unanimous and as powerful as the brewers, something would be done, but the well-off cinema people are not concerned. They are doing well. Those who have cinemas in Sauchiehall Street and the better parts of the town are doing well, but there are others. There is one in Kelvingrove in the constituency represented by the Minister of Agriculture. Many of them are just about ruined because of this duty. Our difficulty is to get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appreciate how much this means to folk who have only a few pence. One penny means a great deal to those who are dealing with pence and not with pounds.
Think of what it means. It is bad enough that these entertainments are threatened by the competition of the open-air entertainments given in our public parks. In Glasgow the great mass of the people can get entertainment free in the public parks. The corporation is able to do that because they have, around the bandstand, an enclosure with chairs and those who can afford to do so pay for seats in the enclosure. By this means
the corporation are able to provide better talent to entertain those folks who are not able to pay anything. But the Entertainment Duty affects this also to the extent that people are not going into the enclosure in the same number as formerly. In the case of the cinemas, think of what it means to poor people on a cold, withering, winter night to be able to get a whole evening's entertainment in one of these cinemas for 3d. or 4d. What the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) said is perfectly true. They get warmth. As I say, the difficulty which presents itself to us in discussing this question is the difficulty of getting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put himself in their place and to realise what it means to be cold and miserable and for want of one penny to be debarred from enjoying two or three hours of this entertainment—and it is cheap, interesting and educative entertainment.
Once again an opportunity presents itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do a good turn, not only to the unemployed but to the partially employed and the lowly-paid. If he has the audacity to claim that his Budget is a generous one, let him carry that principle a little further and give this comparatively small concession. The poorest of the poor would benefit by it and I am sure that the House of Commons and the entire country irrespective of party would stand by the right hon. Gentleman if he took such a course. I know that if the right hon. Gentleman has made up his mind it will be difficult for me or anybody to induce him to change it. We can only do our best by placing before him the facts as we see them. I have here a sheaf of facts and figures which are irrefutable but I am sure a great many of them have already been placed before the Chancellor of the Exchequer and we can only hope that our human appeal to him to-night will find an echo in his action and that he will grant this concession.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: It is not often that I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Members for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), but tonight I am with them in the very human appeal which they have made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is a subject about which
we all know a good deal. It was considered and debated last year. We know that the tax upon the cheap seats was increased at a time of great national stress, and it is the view of some of us that when we have returned, at least to comparative prosperity, the Chancellor might take a more benignant view of the situation than he has taken up to the present. I appeal to the right Gentleman on two grounds. I appeal to him, first, on the human ground. I am sure that the information already in his possession covers the whole field referred to by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs. I am sure he is aware of that life amid the shadows which so many hundreds of thousands of our fellow-citizens are living to-day in the depressed areas. In my own constituency of Dunfermline I know how much the cinema means to thousands of men, women and children. To them an evening at the cinema is the event of the week. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes a kindly view of that aspect of the question and knows it as fully as those of us who are advocating the adoption of this new Clause. It is sometimes thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose duty it is to guard jealously the public purse, shows a very stern demeanour to the House of Commons, but I believe that behind that sternness of demeanour there is a very kind heart, and to that heart we, tonight, are venturing to appeal.
Not only on those human grounds, do I venture to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider his decision on this matter, but on broader business grounds, which I think are of some importance. After all, this is an industry which is providing employment on a large and an increasing scale, but the incidence of this tax has had the effect of closing down many of these places of amusement, and it may not be uninteresting to the right hon. Gentleman to know the enormous changes that have taken place in the proprietorship of cinemas. I do not wish to weary him with unnecessary figures, but these are rather striking: In 1931 the number of cinemas that changed hands was 167, in 1932 the number was 275, and in 1933 the number was 448. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might well say that that shows a very ready market in cinemas, but surely everything depends upon the price at which a man was pos-
sibly forced to sell his cinema on account of the very adverse conditions under which it was working. As a matter of fact, there has been an increase of something like 50 per cent. in the number of cinemas which have been temporarily or permanently closed down.
I think individual experiences are always Valuable in a matter of this kind, and I want to read one or two extracts from a letter which I have received from the proprietor of an electric theatre in Cowdenbeath which illustrates some very striking effects of this taxation. I do not think that when this tax was imposed it was ever expected that losses would be taxed, but that is its effect. Here are a few extracts from this letter:
As you know, the Entertainment" Tax is a tax on turnover, and there is no rebate of same should the nett receipts for the week not cover the overhead expenses of the cinema. Many weeks during the last two years I have been working at a loss. My deficit on many occasions has been as high as £12 in the week, and the average loss on the bad weeks can be put roughly at £7 10s. per week
My average weekly Entertainments Tax on the above deficit basis runs to about £17 per week. You will, therefore, see that the tax makes all the difference between a profit and loss. I now find that the average week's business just about covers expenses, and that I am meeting the deficit of the unhappily too numerous entirely bad weeks from profits made three years ago.
Here are some figures which may interest you: From 10th November, 1930, to 7th November, 1931, my nett drawings were £6,620 16s., and the total Entertainments Tax for that year was £370 17s. 10d. The year following, when the Entertainments Tax was re-imposed on the cheaper seats, my nett drawing were £4,965 16s. 3d., and the Entertainments Tax on that amount was £985 12s. 7d.
It seems to me a very serious matter, having regard to the purpose of taxation, that a decrease in profits year by year should mean an increase in the tax imposed upon the proprietors of cinemas. I know that several other hon. Members wish to take part in this Debate, and so I content myself, with very great respect but with some hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may grant us this concession, by appealing to him to review his previous decision on this important subject.

8.30 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Looking back over a long and ill-spent life, I should say that there are only three redeeming
features in the march of progress and invention. We have learned how to travel more quickly, we have learned how to see farther, and we have learned how to produce more cheaply, but the only three things which have really improved the world are boy scouts, bicycles, and-cinemas. These inventions have been worth while, and they are generally realised as having done something in a dark age to brighten the existence of quite common people. We encourage boy scouts by every means in our power, even though they wear uniforms; in spite of invitation and temptation, we have so far resisted putting a tax on bicycles; and it is only the cinema that appears, out of that triple alliance of benefits, to be selected for penalisation and suppression. I cannot help thinking that this attitude towards the cinema is partly because a great many old fogeys do not like it. They think that it is the wrong form of education for the poor. They think the poor waste their money at the cinema, and this suppressed resentment at the cinema and at the affection felt by common people like myself for the cinema is at the back of this idea that you ought, in the interests of the public—that appalling institution, the public—to make going to the pictures a little bit more expensive.
It cannot be, really, that the money is wanted. I think it is only £1,750,000, the whole of this tax on the sixpenny seats. No, it is the idea that here are little children going to see the pictures and being corrupted there by visions of Tom Mix, of gangster dramas of the Middle East, or something of that sort. It is a passionate desire to interfere with the people's amusements. I resent the Government's attempts to keep me out of a public-house, but I resent far more their attempts to keep other people out of the cinema, and certainly this tax is one of the best ways of stopping working-class children going to the pictures. From the educational point of view, I think we ought to realise that the pictures are of infinitely better value than the national schools. Children up to the age of 10 take in infinitely more from what they see than from what they hear. A great deal of what they hear goes in at one ear and out at the other. They cannot assimilate it, but what they see—hon. Members know very well that what they have seen has affected them far more
than what they have read—remains as a permanent part of their education.
It is possible or even permissible for people to say that you see at the pictures a great deal that it is unwise for children to see. Possibly you do, but that is a small item compared with the amount of real useful broadening of the mind that comes from the pictures. The alternative to the pictures is the novel, too often the novelette. I remember once during the War I had a great deal to do with H. G. Wells, and to make conversation on one occasion I said to him that Germany turned out 17 times the number of people from the universities that we did, and that therefore in the long run Germany was bound to win the War. He replied, "It is true that the German system of national education is better than ours, but I would ask you to observe that the youth of this country are not educated in our elementary schools; they are educated by me and George Bernard Shaw and G. K. Chesterton." He meant it as a joke, but there lb an element of truth in it.
The youth of this country, unlike Germany and France and any other Continental country, steep themselves in novels from the age of 14 to the age of 20. They acquire their ideas of what is right and wrong, not from their parents nor from the parson, but from the heroes and heroines of their novels. A great deal of that literature is just as deleterious to the child's mind as is that proportion of the pictures which we want to see banished from the cinemas. We have to take the bad with the good in any form of popular entertainment, and I maintain that the educational value of the cinema in the last 20 years is infinitely greater than the educational value of the British novel, which is still such a comparatively predominant element in the education of our race. If we are to get away from the idea that every production of the cinema must be useful, educational and beneficial to the child, I believe that this special taxation of the cinema is just as idiotic as would be taxation on bicycles or taxation of the Boy Scouts, both of which forms of amusement have also great educational value in building up self-reliance and self-confidence and all those things which we know to be the true aim and object of education.
Let me show the Committee how this tax, particularly the tax on the 6d. seats, is really stopping people from going to the cinemas. I will take an example from my own constituency, because, naturally, I know that best, but the same thing applies all over the country. There are a lot of small derelict mining villages in my division. In one of them is a cinema where the takings run to about £28 a week. All the seats, of course, are 6d. or less. The tax runs to just over £4 per week. The operation of the theatre, the rent it has to pay for the films, the wages of the operator and the two girls who show people to their seats, and the bookkeeping take away the rest of the takings, so that week by week there has been a dead loss. Inevitably before many months are out that picture palace will be closed and it will mean that that mining village, where the people are horribly poor, will have to go without its pictures. To my mind you might just as well close the national school as close the pictures. The alternative will be take a 2d. tram ride into the town in order to go to pictures where the seats are more expensive, and that is entirely out of the question. You can multiply that all over the country by hundreds if not by thousands. These small places are hanging on because they have a desperate belief that this Parliament and this Budget will remove this penal handicap on this particular form of amusement.
It seems to me that we have got into the habit now of supposing that taxation need not be justified by any of the old canons of taxation dear to the hearts of Adam Smith and Walter Bagehot or any of the nineteenth century economists. Nobody hates Income Tax more than I do, for I do not think anybody has a right to touch my income, but that tax is on something you realise, on profits you make. The local rates on this particular cinema duty has to be paid whether you make profits or not. It is on a principle which is entirely new; not new to English law but new to our economic practice. Therefore, it does want some justification against the charge of being penal and directed to suppressing that particular form of making money or amusing yourself. You could say that the industry is a bad industry, but, if that is your line you would have to prove it, and it would be better to suppress it violently
and by order rather than attack it in this way. There is another canon of decent taxation that seems to me to be broken by this tax. This is a tax on a particular industry. Last year I was complaining to the Chancellor of the Exchequer because he selected raw material of a certain limited number of industries for penal taxation, because they used heavy oil fuel. I said that notice ought to be given so that people who have put their money into that particular form of furnace could have time to get it out before the tax was put upon them and so that the change-over could be made gradually.
Here you have the same thing. Three years ago we had an enormous increase in this tax. Were it on Income Tax it would have gone on all round, but here you put a special tax on cinemas. I ask the House what is the position of the men who have invested their money in pictures on the understanding that they can make a certain profit out of the business. You come along and put on this penalising tax which destroys the value of their property. People who put £5,000 or £10,000 into a string of picture palaces find their property destroyed by Government action. I maintain that that is wrong from the point of view of the community and of sound economics. You ought not to select specified individuals for any form of tax. You ought to have your taxation generally applicable. By all means get this money from Income Tax, which affects everybody, but do not penalise one particular trade, especially when that penalisation involves depriving the youth of the country particularly of a form of education and also, I regret to say, of the only place where they can keep warm in the evening.
There is one other point. Everybody will agree that the advance of the cinema has gone on pari passu with a decrease in the population of the public houses. Drunkenness has been going down in the country. The social conditions of the working classes have within my lifetime infinitely improved, not by forcibly closing down public houses but by providing a counter attraction which provides for the whole evening a place where one can be comfortable and warm and see something amusing about' which they can talk in the family for the rest of the week. I cannot help feeling at the back of my mind that here we have
a desperate and determined battle between the interests of the public house and the interests of the cinema, and all of us who value the improvement in the social standing of the ordinary family in this country must be anxious that in that fight the cinema shall win against the public house. Leave the public house to those who like it, but let those who do not want to use it have their rival social gatherings and forms of innocent amusement.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I have heard sufficient of one side of this case to enable me to make some contribution to the Debate before those who desire to oppose the Clause give expression to their thoughts. The observations I am going to make will be of a sympathetic character, and so, in order that there may be no misunderstanding, I think I should begin by saying that I cannot see my way to accept the Clause. That is not on account of its breach of any canon which has been laid down by me or by my hon. Friend in connection with the Budget, because the Clause is only a partial restoration of a burden which was imposed in 1931, and therefore will, at some time or another, take its place among those items which, as I have already said several times, I consider should have precedence over other forms of tax relief. Nor is my opposition due to either of the reasons so ingeniously put forward by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). There is no battle, so far as the Government are concerned, between the interests of the public-house and of the cinema. I must correct him in his allusion to this as a cinema duty. It is not a cinema duty, although cinemas may be embraced in it. As the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) pointed out, it is an Entertainments Tax which applies to, and in fact restricts and is a trammel upon—to use the hon. Member's phrase—many forms of entertainment beside the cinema. Nor is it the fact, so far as I am concerned—I cannot speak for Lord Snowden—that I have any prejudice against cinemas, or any desire or intention by means of taxation to prevent any section of the population going to cinemas if they wish to do so. That has nothing to do with my opposition.
My difficulty in acceding to the request of my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Clause is one which I can hardly expect to appeal to him as much as it does to me, or, indeed, to anyone who is not Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is purely a matter of money. We have heard some vivid accounts of what the cinema means to the poorest class of people, who find in it not only their sole amusement but even their sole means of comfort. The inference which might be drawn from some of the speeches is that these people are now being deprived of that source of relaxation and comfort by the operation of the tax, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend and several other speakers pointed out, what the tax is really doing in the case of what I may call the poorest class of cinemas—I am not referring to the quality of the entertainment but to the price of the seats—is to hit the proprietors rather than the public, because the proprietors of those cinemas recognise that they cannot fill their cinemas if they are going to ask the public to pay the extra duty which is inflicted upon them by the tax.

Captain DOWER: That is only in a certain number of cases.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not mean to say that that applies to all these cases, but I think it will be recognised that that is the general trend of events, and that is the effect which has been adduced by speakers this afternoon. That being so, it is evident that the cinema proprietor is in a very poor way, and it is further evident that to the extent to which, that contention is true the original purpose of the tax is being defeated, because hon. Members will recollect that in imposing the extra tax Lord Snowden expressly stated that he did it to obtain from that section of the people who went to these cinemas a contribution towards the expenses of the country in a crisis. It appears that they are not paying this contribution, that it is being paid instead by the proprietor of the cinema, and if in the long run the proprietor is unable to carry on and closes down his theatre then, indeed, those poor people will suffer, and in addition to not making their contribution towards the country they will be deprived of something to which they have grown accustomed and which will make a very serious gap in their lives.
I point out what I believe to be the facts in regard to this tax on the cheaper seats, because it does lead to this further deduction: that the real danger to people who frequent these cinemas is not in the extra amount they have to pay, but in the proprietor being unable to maintain his theatre at all, and their being in that way deprived of their amusement altogether. No man who is engaged in business will readily throw it up if he thinks that there is a chance in the not too far distant future of things improving and of his being able once more to recoup his losses. If I cannot to-day, for reasons which I will presently explain to the Committee, accept this new Clause, I would point out that even if I did relief would not come till the 6th November, and there is not a very great deal of time between the 6th November and the 1st April in the following year.
I am not promising now what I will do next year. That must obviously depend upon the condition of affairs then. What I have said, and what may be some comfort to the cinema proprietors and others who are affected by the Entertainments Duty, is that I consider that they are—if I may put it so in this connection—at the top of the queue. I am not likely to be led away by the blandishments of those who are interested in public houses, or of other sections of the community who desire relief from what may seem to them to be hardships, if those hardships were not created in 1931. I must add this further point: Improvement in employment which has already taken place and will, I hope, continue during the year, must have the effect of putting more money into the pockets of the people, and even into the pockets of the very poorest section. That will enable them to go in larger numbers or more frequently to the poorest cinemas, and may help the cinema proprietors to carry on a little longer until the condition of the country permits me to do something for them.
My hon. Friend has very ingeniously arranged his Clause so that the cost which will fall upon the Exchequer within the current year will be within the surplus for which I have budgeted. If one could deal with this current year without regard to the future, I dare say that I might have been disposed to take
the risk of accepting his proposal, but he does not contemplate that, having accepted his proposal and having therefore taken off this tax as between 6th November and 1st April ( I should put it on when the next financial year arises. This is a Clause involving not merely expenditure by the Exchequer of about £900,000 in the current year, but a promise to keep this tax off in the following year as well.
There I come up against my difficulties. The hon. Member has calculated that the cost of this concession would be £1,700,000. The estimate which I have at my disposal is that the cost in a full year would be £2,200,000. That is a little more than the hon. Member calculated. Of the increases in Entertainments Duty which were imposed in 1931, the great bulk come precisely upon the cheap seats, and, if I were to restore wholly the Entertainments Duty to where it was before the increases in 1931—a course which would give relief not only to the proprietors of the cinemas but upon the cheapest seats of the old theatres and music halls and other institutions who also have their case and their hardships and the feeling that they cannot carry on much longer under present circumstances—the cost in a full year would only be £400,000 more than the partial restoration which is contemplated by my hon. Friend; that is to say, the cost in a full year would only be £2,600,000.
Can I feel so certain that I shall have £2,600,000 to spend on this particular matter next year, doing full justice at the same time to the other sacrifices made in 1931, that I can afford to chance it at this stage, before I know what the conditions are in 1935–6? When hon. Members think a little of what is before us, I am sure they will see that the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is by no means so secure as that. If I found myself next year, having already restored not half but the whole of the increases in the Entertainments Duty, unable to complete the restoration of the cuts in salaries and remuneration and the other sacrifices that were made in 1931, I should be justly criticised for having, for the sake of making myself popular and exposing what a human heart I have to the Committee this evening——

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman must not do anything to make himself popular.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirk-wood) is quite right. That consideration never has any influence on me. I would be justly criticised, as I was saying, for having prejudiced the situation and for having given away something without leaving myself with the resources to deal with other hard cases. Let the Committee consider for one moment. The concessions I have endeavoured to make in this year's Budget do not cost their full amount in the current year. I have only dealt with a part of the year, but next year I have to provide for the full cost of the whole year. I wonder whether the Committee realise that I have to provide, for that purpose alone, £9,000,000 more than I have provided this year, without giving away anything at all. That is the first item that I have to consider. I have to consider the fact that besides this £9,000,000, of which I have spoken, I may want to be considering the restoration to some rough equality of the other sacrifices made in 1931. To do that would cost somewhere about—I give the figure roughly to the House—£27,000,000.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is that all?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is all. I have no doubt that the hon. Member has that sum in his pocket every day, but as Chancellor of the Exchequer I have to consider that £27,000,000, plus the £9,000,000; that is £36,000,000. The tale does not end there. In my financial statement in April I mentioned that the item of "Miscellaneous Revenue" still brought a substantial sum to the Exchequer year by year. Many items are declining, and we shall get out of it a diminishing revenue. My position next year may be that I shall have to make allowance for a very considerably reduced amount of miscellaneous revenue; put the reduction at £5,000,000. Probably that is on the conservative side. With the £27,000,000, the £9,000,000 and the £5,000,000 I have already gone to over £40,000,000, by which sum my position seems likely to be worse next year than it is this year, if I am to contemplate making those restorations.
Hon. Members will notice that I have not yet said anything about next year's costs. I may have to find more money-next year as compared with the very low costs that we have been experiencing last year and this year; there may be items in the expenses of the nation which of course I cannot foresee at this moment, but which may, by events beyond our control, be put upon ns, and which I cannot be sure will not arise in the coming year. For these reasons, with the greatest appreciation of the force of the arguments which have been addressed to me from various parts of the Committee this afternoon, and fully realising what difficulties are placed upon cinema proprietors and what hardships may ultimately be inflicted upon poor people whose place of entertainment may be closed if they cannot at some time or another get relief, and fully realising, also, that the tax is not, at any rate in some directions, doing what it was intended to do when it was imposed, still I say that, with the best will in the world, I cannot bring myself to undertake this liability next year in circumstances which I cannot foresee, but where I can plainly foresee that I may have to find money for demands to meet which my resources might prove to be hardly sufficient. In these circumstances, I regret that I cannot accept the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend.
I do not often find myself in agreement with the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), but I must say that on this occasion he struck some answering chords in my breast when he criticised the nature of this tax. For my part, I should be glad, if my resources enabled me to do so, not merely to effect a simple restoration of the particular imposts which were increased in 1931, but, if I may so put it, to remodel the whole tax, because I think that in its present form it is unsatisfactory in many ways, both theoretically and practically. Although, however, I should be glad to do that, and, indeed I hope I may have the opportunity of trying my hand at it, I do not feel that the time has yet come when I should do so.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Listening to the speculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the amount that he would have to find, not only as a result
of this tax being repealed, but for other items, which he worked out at the problematical total of £36,000,000, and also to his impressions of what would be likely to happen if his Budget should come out on the wrong side, one wonders that he ever made any concession or reduction at all this year. One remembers, however, that he has made certain reductions in Income Tax, and has also restored the transitional payments, and I take it that he did that with his eyes wide open. One remembers, further, that last year he made a very large concession to the brewers, and no very disastrous effect followed therefrom. One must take it, therefore, that the cautious manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has stated his case is indicative of the rather careful method that he has of considering his position as Chancellor of the Exchequer and making his provisions with regard to the future revenue and income of the country.
Speaking quite frankly, it seems to me that the Chancellor, in spite of his statement as to what he must find later, would be able to afford, in the five months from the 6th November to the end of March, the sum that would make it possible for him to grant this concession. It is very nice to inform those to whom the concession would be an infinite boon that they are at the head of the queue, and that next year, if it is at all possible, they will be the first to be considered. Might I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, if ever he had stood in a queue outside a picture-house waiting to get in, he would know that sometimes they can squeeze in an extra one who happens to be at the head of the queue when there seemed to be no further room? I suggest to him that he might look a little more sympathetically on the particular class who are at the head of the queue for his next consideration, more particularly because he informed the Committee that the class of people who will be affected by the granting of this concession have borne the greater part of the increase in Entertainments Duty which was put on in 1931. His statement to-night, based, I expect, on figures submitted by his officials, is that by far the larger proportion of the increase in the Entertainments Duty in the Budget of 1931 has had to be borne by the cheaper seats, namely, those at 6d. and under. I suggest that
the right hon. Gentleman himself now admits that this particular burden is being borne by the very poorest of the community, and, if he could grant this concession, the boon would be appreciated by that particular section of the community who can only afford to go to entertainments where the price of admission is 6d. and under.
With regard to the statements that have been made about cinemas closing down, two cinemas out of the six in my own constituency have had to close down, and those are the only two where the prices of admission do not exceed 6d. The same is the case in practically all other districts. The cinemas that are closing down are mostly small places owned by one man, or, perhaps, half-a-dozen men. Representations have been sent by them, and I am certain have been submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, making clear and definite statements as to how this burden of taxation bears upon them. It is not a tax upon any profit; it has to be paid whether there is anything to spare at the end of the week or not. It has to be paid on the turnover, on every seat occupied by a paying patron of the cinema. The Chancellor himself appears to recognise the harshness of the tax, taken as a tax all over the entertainments industry, to such an extent that he himself suggests that, if he is given the time and, I take it, the opportunity, he is prepared to remodel the entire imposition of the tax. If that be his view, he must admit the injustice of the tax.
What my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said about the effect that this form of entertainment has had upon the social life of the community is by no means far-fetched. We can all remember when the little village "pub" seemed to be the only place to which people could go and spend their evenings. Now you find that in those places that are too small to have ft cinema of their own, people go by omnibus to the nearest town where there is a cinema and spend their evenings there in good, healthy enjoyment. All over the country cinemas have been closing down since this additional tax was imposed, and there is justification for asking the Chancellor to reconsider his statement.
It is not only a matter of cinemas. It applies to every form of entertainment for
which a payment of 6d. or under is charged. The Scottish Junior and Juvenile Football Associations cannot charge admission without paying a tax upon it. The right hon. Gentleman has had no occasion to reimpose the taxation of beer that he remitted in his last Budget. I am certain there will be no occasion for him to reimpose the taxes that he has remitted in this Budget, and I am confident that he will have no occasion to tell us that his gloomy forebodings as to the large sums that he expects it will be necessary for him to find have been realised. If the Chancellor will give the matter further consideration, it may be possible to give to the entertainment industry at least some of the surplus that he claims to have had and enable a part of the industry, at all events, to carry on without having to pay this taxation out of its losses, and it may convey some hope to other sections of the industry, given a better financial year, of a further concession.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I was very sympathetic towards this proposal. It is a tragedy that the wretched unemployed man should be deprived of the refuge of the picture house. I listened with great pleasure to the very sympathetic remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course, the thing that is troubling him is where to get the money, because, if he begins making concessions, he will have to make others. It is not for me to make suggestions, but I often wonder that he has not thought of other sources of taxation. No one has had so much benefit from all the expenditure on education as our newspapers. Why could we not have a tax on newspaper advertisements?

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the hon. Member to pursue that matter any further.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I was only pointing out where the money could be found. I am sure no one would welcome it more than our great newspaper proprietors. I say that advisedly. Nothing would give them greater joy than the thought that they had allowed the poor to get the benefit of the pictures. It has been indicated that this is to have the first consideration, and I think hon. Members opposite ought to be content with that, because they have seen that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with all the views that they have expressed. It is
not true, as has been suggested, that we desire to deprive the poor of enjoyment. It is the last thing that is thought of on these benches. One thing that we all believe in, the Chancellor above all, is that the most important thing for a man is what he does in his leisure time. It is almost more important than his work. This is something that fills in the leisure of all classes of people, and notably the poor. If we cannot get them all allotments, we ought at least to see that it is possible for them to fill in some of their leisure time at the picture house. It will probably keep a lot of them from making disturbances at Fascist meetings.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. WEST: I cannot agree with the hon. Member who claimed that the cinema was of more educational value than our schools, but I recognise that it really plays a large part and has a definite educational value. It might play a much more important part if film producers had not such a low estimate of the mentality of our people. I know, too, that cinemas have a great; social value. They offer to working men and women and their children an alternative place to the public house in hundreds of villages and towns in this country. I am one of those who believe that the decline in drunkenness in this country is, partially at any rate, due to the growth in attractiveness of cinema entertainment. I am sure that cinemas have great recreational value for millions of our people. I do not think that many hon. Member of this House will understand with how much enjoyment our people look forward to their weekly cinema. It provides them with what I might call the "high spot" in their life after working at, it may be, some miserable or sordid occupation. The Friday or Saturday night cinema means a great deal to working men and their children.
The Financial Secretary during these Debates has spoken a great deal about the "effective rate of taxation" on the incomes of many people. I wonder if he has thought what is the effective rate of taxation of this cinema tax on poor people, and especially on their children. Remember, it is not a tax upon their income; it is a tax upon their pocket-money, in the case of children whose pocket-money may perhaps be 3d., 4d., or 6d. a week. When they go to a three-penny cinema they have to pay an extra
penny; if it is 3d., they have to pay 4d., and so on. In this case the effective rate ranges from 20 to 25 per cent. That means a great deal: it often means the difference between going to a cinema and not going. The Chancellor in his reply says that the cost would be something about £2,000,000 in a full year.
As I listen to these Debates, I always wonder what are the real factors that govern concessions in the process of a Finance Bill going through this Committee. When it is a question of remitting £20,000,000 to the wealthier income Tax payers, we are given peculiar reasons. We heard a lot of talk about the psychological effect of concessions when they concern wealthy people. I find it very difficult to weigh up the pros and cons of psychological arguments. If I were given some economic reasons, I might be able to put on one side the pros and on the other the cons; but when we are told that the £20,000,000 returned to the Income Tax payers has a psychological basis, it is very hard to understand the statement fairly or to see the Government point of view. When it is a question of remitting £14,000,000 of taxation to the brewers, we are told that it is to the benefit of the trade and employment over the country generally, and that at least £14,000,000 and perhaps £20,000,000 will be spent on boots, clothing and furniture, and that therefore it is beneficial from every point of view.
But what about this £2,000,000 compensation? £2,000,000 is less than £20,000,000. If this tax is remitted—let me use the same argument as was used on the other side—it will surely mean that there will be an additional £2,000,000 in the pockets of the people. If it is a loss to the Treasury, it will be a gain to those people and ultimately be to the benefit to the Treasury by increasing their purchasing power. It will be spent, like the other sum, in more boots, more stockings, more clothing, and so on, and likewise will result in increased employment. It will not be a loss to the State, but a gain. Not only will the poorer people have more enjoyment, more education, more recreation, but there will also be a gain to the general trade and employment of the country. For these reasons I hold that the Chancellor will show nearly as much kindness and consideration for this concession, which con-
cerns the poorest people, as he has shown in regard to concessions to those who are better off.
In this House the most powerful and wealthiest interests have 500 representatives who support them very strongly. A concession for the brewers is supported by powerful speeches from the other side, with economic and other arguments. A concession to landlords will also call for eloquent speeches.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. Member aware that the concessions which he says were made to the brewers were actually made to the brewers' customers?

Mr. WEST: I know they were intended to be given to the brewers' customers, but I know that their effect has been a tremendous increase in the value of brewery shares, so they have gone the wrong road. Just as concessions to those who are wealthy receive the most powerful support from hon. Members opposite, and perhaps for that reason they look down on my arguments, in this case the concession is only £2,000,000, one-tenth of what was given to the wealthier Income Tax payers. On our side of the House there are only perhaps 50 or 60 Members who will support this concession, and obviously this Clause cannot be put in the Finance Bill without help from the other side. Many hon. Members who have spoken from the other side have proclaimed their sympathy with this idea, but nobody who has spoken has proclaimed that the concession is a right and proper thing for the Government to give. If they mean this, they must see clearly that the Clause cannot be carried by the Votes on this side of the Committee, and that the only way to put their sympathy into practical operation is to vote for this Clause, to show that they are not merely talking with their tongue in their cheek but that they really mean the sympathy that they express with this concession to the poorest people. I hope that hon. Members opposite will show that they are sincere by going into the Lobby and voting with us in our endeavour to give this concession.

Colonel BALDWIN-WEBB: In view of the very sympathetic reply given by my right hon. Friend, and as I intend to raise the matter again at the earliest opportunity, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 64; Noes, 221.

Division No. 279.]
AYES.
[9.35 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Rea, Walter Russell


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harris, Sir Percy
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Janner, Barnett
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Jenkins, Sir William
Summersby, Charles H.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kirkwood, David
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Curry, A. C.
Lawson, John James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
West, F. R.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
White, Henry Graham


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
McGovern, John
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James



Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Milner, Major James



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Edmondson, Major Sir James
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Law, Sir Alfred


Albery, Irving James
Elmley, Viscount
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)


Alexander, Sir William
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Levy, Thomas


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lewis, Oswald


Amery. Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Liddall, Walter S.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Fermoy, Lord
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Liewellin, Major John J.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Bilnden, James
Ganzonl, Sir John
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Bossom, A. C.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)


Boulton, W. W.
Gillett, Sir George Mastarman
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George F. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Loftus, Pierce C.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Brass, Captain Sir William
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Greene, William P. C.
McLean, Dr. W. H, (Tradeston)


Brown. Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Buchan, John
Grimston, R. V.
Maltland, Adam


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Cassels, James Dale
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hanbury, Cecil
Mayhaw, Lieut.-Colonel John


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Meller, Sir Richard James


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hartington, Marquess of
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Hartland, George A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Clarke, Frank
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Moreing, Adrian C.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Morgan, Robert H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsford)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Morrison, William Shephard


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hore-Bellsha, Leslle
Munro, Patrick


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hornby, Frank
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Patrick, Colin M.


Crossley, A. C.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Peake, Captain Osbert


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Petherick, M


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Radford, E. A.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Dixey, Arthur C. N.
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Drewe, Cedric
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Rankin, Robert


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Kimball, Lawrence
Ray, Sir William


Dunglass, Lord
Knox, Sir Alfred
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Eales, John Frederick
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Remer, John R.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)
Todd. A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Rickards, George William
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Somerset, Thomas
Train, John


Robinson, John Roland
Somervell, Sir Donald
Tree, Ronald


Ropner, Colonel L.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Sopar, Richard
Turton, Robert Hugh


Ross, Ronald D.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Spencer, Captain Richard A
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Spans, William Patrick
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Runge, Norah Cecil
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wells, Sidney Richard


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)
Stones, James
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Storey, Samuel
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Salmon, Sir Isidore
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Wise, Alfred R.


Salt, Edward W.
Strauss, Edward A.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Savery, Samuel Sarvington
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Selley, Harry R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.



Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Sutcliffe, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Shaw, Captain William T. (Forlar)
Tate, Mavis Constance
Sir George Penny and Dr. Morris-Jones.


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A (Pd'gt'n, S.)



Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE —(Repayment of estate duty on property included in a clearance area.)

(1) Where any property consisting of land with a building thereon or an interest in such land is included in a clearance area declared by a local authority under section one of the Housing Act, 1930, and the building is demolished or purchased compulsorily by order of the local authority for the purposes of the clearance area within five years after estate duty or succession duty (in this section referred to as "death duty") became payable in respect of the property the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall on the application of the administrators of the estate of which the property formed part repay to the administrators the amount of the excess payment of death duty on the property calculated on the following basis:—

(a) in the case of the demolition of the building under a clearance order made under the authority of section two of the Housing Act, 1930,—

(i) where the property is a freehold house the difference between the amount of death duty paid on the property and the amount which would have been payable if the property had been valued for probate as land cleared of buildings;
(ii) where the property is a leasehold house the amount paid by way of death duty in respect of any leasehold interest therein; and

(b) in the case of the compulsory purchase of the land under a compulsory purchase order made under the authority of section ten of the Housing Act, 1930, the difference between the amount of death duty paid on the property and the amount which would have been payable if the property had been valued for probate at the price at which the property was purchased compulsorily:

Provided that no application under this section shall be considered by the Commissioners in any case where the property has been sold within the said five years or unless the building in respect of which the
application is made was maintained in reasonably good repair until the date of the declaration of the clearance area.
(2) All sums paid under this section to the administrators of the estate shall be accounted for and paid by them to the persons entitled to the property in respect of which the death duty was paid according to their several interests therein.—[Mr. Hannon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause, which stands on the Paper in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, embodies proposals with reference to relief of property owners in this country, which, I hope, the Financial Secretary will see have real substance. The Clause aims at the repayment of Estate Duty on property included in a clearance area. Members of the Committee are familiar with many cases throughout the country of great hardship on owners of property subject to clearance by having assessment of Estate Duty on an Inland Revenue basis of which they have no possibility of realising, as they only receive a nominal sum for site value, of property under clearance orders. It is the fact that estates are liable for payment of Estate Duty when followed by a condemnation of the property for clearance purposes. The Estate Duty having been assessed, and a subsequent clearance order having been made, it means that the owners have practically no relief at all from the burden of payment of Estate Duty.
There are two valuations in the case of property in this country. One is the Inland Revenue valuation for the purpose
of Estate Duty, and the other is a valuation for site value for clearance purposes under the Housing Acts. This Clause is designed to give relief on payment of the Death Duties under those valuations. It endeavours to provide a remedy where, for instance, you have freehold property ordered to be demolished. The Clause provides for the repayment of Estate Duty on the difference between Estate Duty paid on the property and the amount which would have been payable if the land had been cleared of buildings. It is obviously a measure of justice, and I am sure that the Committee will see the propriety of having some provision of this kind embodied in the Finance Bill. Again, where leasehold property has been ordered to be demolished, the Clause provides for the repayment of Estate Duty which has been paid on the house alone, and, further, in the case of compulsory purchase, the estate should be allowed to recover the difference between the amount of Estate Duty actually paid and the amount which would have been paid if the valuation had been at a compulsory purchase figure. In the judgment of those who have prepared it and of Members of this House who are giving close attention to many of the grievances from which property owners now suffer under clearance schemes, the Clause is regarded as a reasonable one to be embodied in the Finance Bill.
There are several safeguards which are embodied in the Clause. There is a five years' period during which a claim can be made by the administrators from and after the date on which the Estate Duty or Succession Duty have become payable in respect of the property, and the date of the condemnation of the property for clearance. If the property has changed hands within five years of the date on which the Estate Duty or Succession Duty became payable, then no application for easement will be entertained. Further, there is a provision in the Clause that property must be kept in reasonably good condition. Sometime ago the Minister of Health received a deputation which I had the honour of introducing to him, dealing with the very complex and embarrassing question of slum clearance in many of our industrial areas, and he was kind enough to say that cases of hardship would be taken into individual consideration so far as the provisions of the Housing Act would admit. In this particular
case, we are pleading with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury not to impose in the Finance Bill a grave hardship on property owners when they become subject to a clearance order, but to accept the new Clause.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: I rise to support the Clause because of a case that arose in Leeds, which was generally felt to create a real hardship. The case was a simple one. The Inland Revenue valued certain property at about £2,500 and Death Duties were paid on that valuation. Within about 10 days of the payment of the Death Duties on that valuation the property was included in a clearance area, and the value in those circumstances was estimated to be about £600. I am not criticising the valuation made under the clearance scheme, but I am citing the case as a typical example of what we desire to meet. The new Clause merely lays down the principle that where the Inland Revenue values property for the purposes of taxation at a certain figure and then a short time afterwards the property is taken for public purposes at a very much less valuation, the person who has paid Death Duty on the higher valuation may reasonably claim an equivalent refund of Death Duty so as to bring the two valuations—the valuation of the Inland Revenue for the purpose of Death Duty and the valuation for the purpose of clearance—into harmony. This is so simple a principle and so obviously a matter of justice that I am sure it will appeal to the warm heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

9.49 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I think there is a very important difference between paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of the proposed Clause. I think there is a strong case for consideration in regard to the question of compulsory purchase of land where it is required for public purposes. As a rule, a very full and generous allowance is made in such cases. Paragraph (a) comes under an entirely different category. I was connected for many years with the housing authority of London—I am no longer a member of it—and year in and year out we had the problem of slum clearance before us. Whenever land was required for slum clearance we had tragic tales about widows and orphans and about the poor person who was in-
terested in the property, and we were told how hard, cruel and unreasonable we were in our treatment of these people. I would remind the Committee that the procedure may be complex, but on the whole it is in the interests of the owner of property.
A very careful inquiry is made by the representative of the Ministry of Health before land can be included in a slum clearance area; in other words, before it can be marked red. Not only has the evidence of a medical officer of health to be produced, but every opportunity is given to the owners of the property to prove that the land and the houses thereon may be regarded as fit for human habitation. I admit that there may be exceptions where hardship is done, but in the great majority of cases the revenue has been enjoyed by the owner of the property from most undesirable property. There are often cases where nobody would really feel sorry for the property owner if he lost his property, because the property is very bad. The same argument applies to the person who sells bad food or any article that is unfit for human consumption.

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Baronet's argument relevant to the Clause. We are dealing in this Clause with two valuations, and we are asking that a measure of justice should be meted out. The hon. Baronet is now speaking of the clearance of slum property in London.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood the hon. Baronet to be arguing why the Committee should not accept the Clause.

Sir P. HARRIS: Yes, and I am making out a very good case. I think that I can convert the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft).

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I was amused at the hon. Baronet saying that he was making out a good case.

Sir P. HARRIS: I can assure the hon. Baronet that I am making a very good case, and if he will listen to me, I think I can convert him. If there were an owner of property in his area and his constituents had been living for years in undesirable property owned by that person, and if that property had been spread-
ing disease in his district, I am sure that he would not suggest that the owner of the property should get the commercial value and not the slum value, as the law provides. It is suggested by the Mover of the Clause that when the real value of the property has been ascertained as a result of a public inquiry and that value has been arrived at by the depreciation caused by the existence of slums, the owner of the property should be given the difference between the slum property value and the artificial value from the commercial point of view.

Mr. DENMAN: The point is that a certain value has been put upon the property by the Inland Revenue for taxation purposes and the executors have paid Death Duty on that valuation.

Sir P. HARRIS: The property owner has been enjoying revenue from the slum property for years. If he had been looking after his property in a proper way and seeing that good property was there instead of slum property, he would not have been enjoying exceptional revenue out of it. That is the essential point.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: Estate Duty is not paid on what a man has received in his life-time, but on what the possibilities are of money being received by the person to whom the estate is to come.

Sir P. HARRIS: Estate Duty is paid on the value of the property. Slum property brings in very considerable revenue, rents have been paid and a certain value has been given to the property by the fact that the site has been covered with slum property. It is valued on that basis. When it comes to the inheritor who has to pay Estate Duty it is not unreasonable, if it is proved to the satisfaction of an impartial tribunal that that value was given to it because of its slum value, that it should be valued on any other basis. We want to make ownership of slum property a crime.

Mr. CAPORN: Will the hon. Member tell me why the London County Council demolished it before and why by the Rent Restriction Act they prevented the owner getting possession?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the hon. Member is not entitled to reply to those questions on this Amendment.

Sir P. HARRIS: Every Member of the Committee knows what slum property is Surely no one will suggest that after a property has been valued on the basis of the rents it has brought in for years that afterwards, because it has been con demned, a lower valuation should be taken. If there is one concession the Financial Secretary is going to make I hope it is not in the interest of slum values.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not going to give way to the demands of hon. Members behind him. When hon. Members raise questions of this kind we are at once suspicious as to what they are after. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has been told that he has not grasped what this is all about; perhaps the same will be said of hon. Members on these benches. I noticed that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was so careful of the terms he used that he practically read the bulk of his explanation of the new Clause. The point made by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green is quite a good one. The people concerned have been getting the benefit of this slum property for years, and all we are asking now is that when it is revalued as a result of clearance there should be a revaluation for the purposes of Death Duty. People who own this kind of property have been getting the benefit all these years while the people who ought to have our sympathy are those who have had to live in it. I hope the Government will not yield on this matter. It is not only a question of financial justice, it is a matter of social justice to the people who have had to live in these slums for years, and the sooner we get rid of them the better.

9.59 p.m.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has an inaccurate idea of the valuation for Death Duty. Land is not valued for Death Duty on what the owner has made out of it in the past, the basis of the valuation is what the land would fetch in the open market, and as slum property is fetching very small sums in the open market now because of the knowledge of these various schemes of the Government, slum property is more
likely to be valued low than high. There may have been a number of cases where the valuation has been very high, far higher than the property turned out to be worth, but it is harsh on a man when the Government values it at £1,000 and his successor pays Death Duty on that amount, that in a short time the Government again should value the land and say, if it is leasehold it is nothing, if it is freehold it is £100. The successor has already paid Death Duty on the higher sum. The Government in both cases value the land, and it seems only common justice that the successor should not get the worst of it, both ways. I do not want to say anything which might be thought to be in favour of slum landlords, yet it is known that in slum areas there is a good deal of property which has been well kept. It gets into a clearance order, and site value is all that the owner can get. There is a strong case for the new Clause. As a simple matter of common justice the Government should not make two valuations in a short time.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: It has been suggested that property owners have been fairly treated. I think this is an occasion when we should not consider any special category of property owners, or investment. I am looking at the matter and supporting the new Clause because I want to take a broader view. I can see the effect of the legislation in the 1930 Act and the operation of values for Estate Duty purposes, on property referred to as slum property, having a very detrimental effect on this class of property generally. Already one can see that investors are going away from this class of property. The effect of that will be that values generally will fall, whether it is slum property or property in a good sanitary condition. The effect of that ultimately must be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will lose money on Death Duties. That is the reason why I want to take a much broader view. The new Clause, undoubtedly, is reasonable, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take the broad view I suggest he will find in the end that Exchequer receipts will benefit.
Large sums of money have been invested in small property by building societies. I want to issue a note of warning to the Government, because, unless
a check is put upon this attack coming from many angles against property, building societies must eventually suffer. You are shaking the foundations of a source of investment upon which the workers of this country have relied, and upon which they look as being more stable than any other form of investment, and I feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be well advised not to listen to hon. Members opposite but to hon. Members behind him, and to remove from his mind any possibility of favouring either one side or the other, but to take a national view and think of the revenue of the future and the stability of real estate, upon which he relies for so much of his revenue.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. WEST: There is one aspect that must strike everyone who has listened to this Debate, and that is that those on the other side of the Committee who support this Clause are concerned very much with the grievances and hardships of a certain class of property owners. I cannot believe for a moment that the grievance is a real one. After we have had a National Government for nearly three years, a Government composed very largely of property owners or people representing property owners, and indeed after we have had Government after Government composed largely of property owners, I cannot believe that there can be any single case of hardship or grievance of a property owner. Property owners have been well looked after by Conservative Governments. The hon. Member who spoke last did say something of what he thought about poor working people who had their money invested in the slums. In the old days when we tried to abolish slavery we heard pleas for the poor widow with two slaves. We have been told nothing to-day about the slums of Kensington or Paddington. I am very glad to see hon. Members for Kensington and Paddington present. They have special reasons to be present, seeing that in their areas are the worst slums in the whole of London, and perhaps in England.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: On a point of Order. The hon. Member is accusing me of having based my few remarks on some-
thing which I did not say and which is entirely inaccurate.

Mr. WEST: That is no point of Order. The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) surprised me very much. I think I am correct in saying that he represents an organisation which has a great interest in Paddington, which is a great owner of land in Paddington and upon whose land are some of the worst slums in London.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would point out that the Ecclesiastical Commission would not be affected at all by this Clause.

Mr. WEST: I did not mention the Ecclesiastical Commission. The hon. Member for Central Leeds ought to be trying to, get fines from those people instead of getting concessions for them. I feel confident that the Financial Secretary will resist this Clause. Only half-an-hour ago his Chief told us that he could not afford a concession to the poorest people of this country; he told us that £2,000,000 was far too much to concede. I am sure that on the same ground of financial urgency the right hon. Gentleman will oppose this Clause. If we cannot afford to give grants to the poorest of the people I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find himself equally unable to give concessions to the slum landlords of London.

10.9 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: I would like to put forward cogent reasons for resisting this Clause. First of all I see nothing in the Clause to provide that further duty shall be paid to the Exchequer should there be an increase instead of a decrease in the value of the property concerned. If the property was the Lena Goldfields, for which the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) has so often pleaded, and if within five years after death occurred there was a rise in the value of the property, are the people concerned to go to the Chancellor and say: "Here are more Death Duties which we feel we owe to you because our shares have risen?." The same thing applies to any kind of property. I see no reason why the Chancellor should accept the Clause because the value of property has depreciated instead of appreciated.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: An impartial auditor of this Debate must have come to the conclusion that a great deal of sympathy is to be attached to the type of case for whom my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) pleaded so lucidly. The Clause bristles with technical flaws. If he would like me to examine the Clause with him in detail I will with pleasure do so, but perhaps the Committee will prefer me to leave that task and to deal only with the broader ground of principle. My hon. Friend proposes that where land with buildings on it has passed at death and has been charged Death Duties, a reduction of a portion of the duty shall be made if within six years—there is a technical reason for the six years—of the death the property is included in a clearance scheme and the local authority orders the building to be demolished, or the property is purchased compulsorily for the purpose of a clearance area. On the face of it that proposition sounds most attractive. But, as the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) has pointed out, the value for purposes of Estate Duty is the market value of the property at the date of death. Once a breach is made in that principle the whole of the Estate Duty is in chaos—for many factors may intervene, such as a change in the value after the death, which may give rise to claims by the Revenue on the one hand or by the heir on the other—and one might as well abandon the Estate Duty altogether.
Therefore, we have to stand firm, in justice, as it may be in some cases to the taxpayer, and in justice to the Revenue in the other; we have to stand firm on that principle. Let us see how that principle falls within the terms of this Clause. There are only two cases to be considered. One is where the property is already the subject of a clearance scheme. Plainly that is taken into account for the purpose of valuation for Estate Duty, and no injustice is done. That is the case where the property is already within a scheme. The other case is where within the next six years by chance it comes within a scheme. During the whole of those six years the owner of the property has had it at his complete disposal. He might have sold it at any moment.

Mr. DENMAN: That is excluded.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Precisely, and by that exclusion my hon. Friend recognises the fact that there has been a free opportunity for a disposition of the property. Under the proviso the purchaser is not to have the benefit of any compensation. Therefore, if the owner of the property happens to have disposed of it and the purchaser has made a bad bargain, there is no redress for the purchaser and no redress for anybody. The proviso further says—and this emphasises the difficulty—that there is to be no refund unless the property has been maintained, for the whole of the six years, in reasonably good repair. What method has the Inland Revenue at its disposal for looking back over a period of six years and checking as to whether a particular property has been kept in proper repair or not during that period? We have no adequate staff for that purpose and absolutely no method of fulfilling this proviso. If this Clause were accepted, we would be asked to establish some machinery of this kind which would be quite without our province, and if property had not been maintained in proper order and if the refund of duty were refused, we would be confronted with protests from every quarter and, no doubt, questions in the House of Commons.
In nothing that I have said do I wish to be interpreted as not appreciating the apparent injustice which is done here, but that is an injustice inherent in the Death Duties themselves, if it is to be described as an injustice at all. Once you establish the principle of Death Duties you cannot have regard to anything that happens after the date of death. It is significant that in the whole of this discussion only one instance has been given and that was the illustration brought by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman). I am not acquainted with the case he mentioned, but I ask the Committee to observe his own words in regard to it, namely, that within 12 days of the payment of Death Duties the property was taken for public purposes. My hon. Friend said that a wrong had been done in that case, but it was within 12 days of the payment of the Death Duties and not within 12 days of the death that the property was taken for public purposes, and there was probably a very long delay between the death and the payment of
the duties. Strongly as my hon. Friend has argued this case and strongly as it has been pleaded by other hon. Members, I think even those who have supported the new Clause realise that we must abide by the principle that valuation for the purposes of Death Duties must be as at the date of death and, in the circumstances, with great reluctance I must ask the Committee not to accept the new Clause.

Mr. HANNON: In view of the Financial Secretary's statement, I beg leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE —(Power to warehouse British compounds in bottles.)

Notwithstanding anything in Sub-section (5) of Section ninety-five of the Spirits Act, 1880, any British compounds which may under that Section be warehoused for home consumption may, subject to such regulations as the Commissioners may prescribe, be warehoused, whether for home consumption or for exportation or for ship's stores, in bottles instead of in casks, and the said regulations may apply the provisions of that Section which relate to warehousing in casks subject to such modifications as the Commissioners think necessary to adapt them to warehousing in bottles.—[Mr. Bossom.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. BOSSOM: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read the Second time."
At the present time manufacturers of British compounds who come under this Section of the Spirits Act enjoy the privilege of getting a draw-back from the duty which they have paid upon material in bond, but that privilege only applies in so far as their produce is in bond in casks. Where it is in bottles they do not get that privilege. By this new Clause I am asking that this privilege should also be given to them as regards their produce in bottles.

Mr. HORE - BELISHA: My hon. Friend's case seems irresistible in logic, and, as it would cost nothing, I do not think there can be any objection to accepting the new Clause.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE —(Amendment to 22 Geo. 5, c. 8, s. 3.)

Sub-section (2) of Section three of the Import Duties Act, 1932, shall be amended
by inserting the words "and in particular of providing employment" after the words "national interest."—[Mr. Amery.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
No apology is required for drawing attention to the vital subject of unemployment in its bearing upon the Finance Bill. We can all recognise the great diminution in unemployment that has taken place in the last 18 months, and in his Budget Speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that:
The improvement in the condition of the country is due almost entirely to the expansion of the home market and to the greater part of that market which has been secured by our own people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1934; col. 904, Vol. 288.]
In other words, the improvement in our situation has been due almost entirely to the reduction of foreign competitive imports in our home market by the operation of a tariff. We had an interesting illustration of that in our discussions last Friday, and I could give a great many figures, but it will be enough for my purpose to point out that if we compare the figures of this year with those of 1931, and in order to compare like with like bring the prices of 1931 to the 1933 level, we get a reduction in imports of competing manufactures—and I exclude for that purpose non-ferrous metals and oils—from £169,000,000 to a little over £96,000,000. That is a very important reduction. A very striking fact, however, is that that process of reduction, which began with the operation of the tariff as worked out by the Advisory Committee in the course of the year 1932, is coming to an end and has been succeeded during all the earlier months of this year by a very remarkable increase in the imports of competing manufactures. There has been, of course, also a very satisfactory increase in the imports of raw materials and of those articles which, though they are classified with manufactured imports, are definitely of a non-competitive character and partake more of the nature of raw materials or semi-raw materials—I mean oils and non-ferrous metals.
But, taking the competitive manufactures, the increase has been most striking, and I hope the Committee will pardon me if I give them just a few figures. In
the category of pottery and glass, the increase as between the imports of the first three months of last year and the first three months of this year has been in the nature of 50 per cent.; in the case of iron and steel, the increase has been 50 per cent., of cutlery and hardware about 25 per cent., of electrical goods 23 per cent., of machinery over 50 per cent., of silk yarns for manufacture 40 per cent., and of vehicles 50 per cent. In fact, over the whole category of our imports of manufactures the figures for the first three months of this year as compared with the first three months of last year show an increase of some 25 per cent., and the figures for the first four months certainly do not show any great change in that respect.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he is not entitled on this Clause to use arguments that would have been in order on his previous Clause—
Sub-section (1) of section three of the Import Duties Act, 1932, shall have effect as if at the end there were added the words 'being a rate deemed by the Committee sufficient to prevent the substantial importation of goods capable of being produced efficiently and in adequate quantities in the United Kingdom.' 
—if that had been in order.

Mr. AMERY: I naturally bow to your Ruling, Captain Bourne, but I was referring to these figures purely as showing their effect on the problem of unemployment. I was not suggesting precisely what method the Advisory Committee should employ in reference to this drop in unemployment. I think the figures I have given are significant as showing that the employment that might have gone to industries and workers in this country is by the present operation of our tariffs going to our foreign competitors. To that extent, without in any sense trespassing upon your Ruling, I would submit that it has a bearing upon the Amendment to note that the employment situation has been seriously affected by the very substantial increase in imports in the last few months.
I do not wish to weary the Committee with figures. I have a whole sheet of figures in respect of more detailed aspects of this question that show even more remarkable increases ranging from 50 per
cent. to 185 per cent. over a large number of industries, not specialised industries, but ordinary products of our staple industries. It may very well be that in any one particular case there are special circumstances to warrant such an increase of importation, but when we find it extended over every class of manufactured goods it seems to indicate clearly that certain general influences are at work prejudicing the employment of our people. I suggest that the course of circumstances inside and outside this country in the last 18 months offer some explanation of that change in the situation. When our present tariff system took shape more than 18 months ago we were helped in this country not only by the tariff duties——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot have a general discussion on tariffs on this new Clause. The scope of the right hon. Gentleman's proposed Clause is strictly limited to what the Advisory Committee may take into account in making a recommendation. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep to the strict limitations of his own new Clause.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: On a point of Order. Some of my hon. Friends and I have been wondering how this new Clause comes to be in order at all. The purpose of it, as we understand, is to alter Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Import Duties Act, 1932. As I understand it, it is not a proposal to alter the incidence of any duties. It is merely to alter the terms of reference to the committee which was set up to operate the Import Duties Act. How, therefore, does the proposed new Clause come in order in connection with the Finance Bill?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think it is in order as we have made amendments to the Import Duties Act in the Finance Bill, but, as the hon. Gentleman truly observes, the only effect of this proposed Clause is slightly to enlarge the meaning of the words "advisable in the national interest," which are the present governing terms. Any question that goes beyond that would be out of order as it would require a fresh Financial Resolution.

Mr. JONES: As I understand the purpose of this new Clause, it is merely to
alter the terms of reference under which the committee operates. Surely it follows that the only way to make an alteration of that sort would be by an alteration of the Act itself and not in the Finance Bill.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: My answer to that is that we have made small amendments to the Import Duties Act in the Finance Bill. I do not regard this proposed Clause as going as far as an alteration in the terms of reference. I regard it as explanatory of certain things which the committee have to take into account, but not an extension of its terms of reference. If it were a substantial Amendment, it would go outside the Finance Bill.

Mr. JONES: I am sorry to persist, but this is a matter of importance. As I gather from your Ruling, you now take the view that this is merely explanatory of the functions of the Advisory Committee. Am I not, therefore, entitled to take the point that if we want to define or to explain the functions of the Committee the appropriate place to do that would be upon a Motion to alter the Import Duties Act and its terminology and not the Finance Bill? There is no proposal here, I submit, to alter the financial incidence of the Import Duties Act.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Committee have passed Clause 11, which alters Sub-section (7) of Section 2 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, which had sole reference to the functions of the Advisory Committee. As that Clause was not challenged on the ground of Order I cannot now hold that what is now proposed is out of order.

Mr. AMERY: I will endeavour, within the somewhat narrow lines to which I am confined, at any rate to draw attention to this consideration, that when the Advisory Committee were dealing with their problems some time ago, in considering the employment aspect of their recommendations, they also had to take into account certain other factors of the situation, such as the effect upon employment in this country of the depreciation of sterling as compared with the currencies of other countries, and that factor undoubtedly influenced, and perhaps modified, the recommendations which they
might have otherwise have made. Since they took that aspect of the situation into consideration I imagine that the effect of our going off the Gold Standard has in itself somewhat worn off; but, apart from that, other countries have taken measures which have very largely, if not wholly, counteracted that aspect of the situation in its bearing upon employment. There are countries which have gone altogether off their previous standards—I would refer to Japan, to Czechoslovakia and Austria; and other countries which have depreciated their exchanges very heavily, with undoubted effect upon the employment situation and upon that consideration which the Advisory Committee bad to give both 18 months ago, and we hope will continue to give, to the situation. So, too, other Governments, some by all-round scaling down of wage rates, salaries, mortgages, rents and other considerations—as in the case of Germany and Belgium—or by such devices as the use of the scrip mark, have very directly affected the employment position in this country; and it seems to me that all those considerations do affect the position of the Advisory Committee when they view the whole situation of industry and employment in this country.
The object of this Clause, putting it within its narrowest limits, is to urge upon the Advisory Committee the special importance of the employment aspect of their recommendations, and, in bringing it to their mind, to bring also to their mind the various other aspects which are emphasised for us in this remarkable increase of foreign competitive manufactures prejudicial to employment in our own industries. It is from that point of view that I would urge the matter upon the consideration of the Government, in the hope that they may accept this Clause and thereby remind the Advisory Committee of their responsibility. The Import Duties Advisory Committee were appointed to shelter the imposition of tariffs from purely political influence, and the, committee have in every way met that very reasonable purpose. It is with great satisfaction that we can say that our tariff is based purely on the merits of each case, without any political lobbying or pressure upon the Government.
That does not mean that the Government or Parliament are not entitled to
bring before the Advisory Committee the broad, general aspect of the employment situation, in its bearings upon recommendations of the committee. We are not suggesting pressure on the Advisory Committee with regard to any particular duty, but it is within the rights and duties of the House of Commons and of the Government, where a general situation indicates that employment in this country is in grave danger and that action by the Advisory Committee is required, to give the Advisory Committee a recommendation of a general character to take prompt action. That is what we are asking of the Government. It is by employment that this Government will stand or fall. The reduction that has taken place in unemployment during the last 18 months has been very satisfactory, but we have only come down to a little below the figures of 1931 when this Government took office. We know that there was an adverse situation in the first year, here and in the world outside, before our tariff system could come into effect. Those things will not be considered——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is again straying beyond the limits of the discussion.

Mr. AMERY: I shall not continue the matter further except to say that the single question of employment is the most serious one that is before the country, and that it is being gravely prejudiced by certain facts to which I have drawn attention. It is desirable that this situation should be brought to the attention of the Advisory Committee, and it is for that reason that I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to accept this Clause.

10.39 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: I want to add a word or two to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). I quite recognise the narrow limits within which, necessarily, this discussion is confined; it is directed to the question of what should be the sailing orders of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. I want to put before the Chancellor the view that the change in instructions is not only advisable but absolutely necessary, owing to the complete change of the character of the competition with which industry in this country has had to deal during
the last two years. The Import Duties Act was, no doubt, wisely worded in the situation as it existed in 1932, but I submit to the Chancellor that that situation has absolutely changed in the two years' interval. We are now in a situation in which we see, as between the various industrial countries of Europe, a scramble for employment. Everywhere there is an unemployment problem; the Government of every country is engaged upon that one paramount question above every other on which its life depends—whether it can find employment for its own people. In these circumstances, I consider that my right hon. Friend is not only justified in moving this Clause, but that he was bound to call the attention of the Government to the matter, in order that they might state, in the general instructions which they put before the Advisory Committee, that their guiding principle in considering every question that comes before them should be that now, when employment in this country hangs in the balance, and when it is a question whether we are going to be able to continue to reduce unemployment or not, they must devote their attention on every question that comes before them, first and foremost to considering whether it will give increased employment in this country.
It is on these general lines that I hope the Chancellor will regard this Clause. It can do no harm, and I believe it can do a great deal of good as a general indication from the House of Commons that, whatever other national questions there may be—and national questions are of varying degrees of importance—the one outstanding question which this Government and the whole country have to keep constantly before their eyes, and which must be the guiding principle of every decision of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, is, will it or will it not reduce unemployment in this country?

10.43 p.m.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: Looking casually at the wording of this proposed new Clause, it seems harmless enough. It almost seems as though one who is not entirely enamoured of the system of import duties could accept it with pleasure, because many of us believe that, the more you examine the effect of tariffs upon employment, the more sure you are not to get any more tariffs. But, having heard the explanation of the right hon.
Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), and in particular the few-remarks added by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), I am inclined to wonder whether the Clause is necessary at all. The Section of the Import Duties Act which this Clause is designed to amend already says that the committee must take into account the national interest. The hon. Baronet has just told us that they must take into account first and foremost the question of increased employment. I should have thought that the greater would include the less, and that, if any further direction were required by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, merely drawing their attention to this question of employment by the Debate to-night would be all that is required, without making any alteration in the Section.
Perhaps, however, one might imagine, on examining the Clause a little further, that something may have happened in the case of applications which have been made by various trades to the Import Duties Advisory Committee and which have not met with a favourable impression. Despite the denials of the right hon. Gentleman, I maintain, and I think that this Committee, if they examine the matter impartially, are bound to agree, that the insertion of an instruction of this kind is undoubtedly applying pressure to the members of the Advisory Committee, and attempting to force them to take into special consideration some factors which they have not been in the habit of taking into consideration hitherto.

Sir B. PETO: May I ask the hon. Member how he reconciles that suggestion with the fact that, as he has stated, general instructions are already given in the Act?

Mr. ROBERTS: Merely because one wonders why, if these instructions have not always been carried out, it is necessary to draw the attention of the Committee to them now. All these cases that are submitted to the Tariff Advisory Committee, as far as one can judge from their reports and recommendations, have taken into consideration every relevant factor. It does not require me to remind a National Government that one of the objects of the Tariff Advisory Committee
was to fulfil the Government's policy as expressed in the Import Duties Act. The addition of this instruction brings it rather beyond the intention of the original Act, which was to balance trade, if such a thing could possibly be done, and balance our exchanges with other countries. This is an addition which would bring the purpose of the Import Duties Act altogether and entirely within the old Conservative policy of Protection. The right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to prove that it is necessary now to give the Tariff Advisory Committee power to take this matter into consideration when arriving at further restrictions and duties. His reason was that the imports of competitive manufactured article from abroad are increasing, and I think he gave us a number of percentages. He said that because of these increases there was a deleterious effect on employment. In the same breath he congratulated the Government upon the increase in employment generally. I do not think there is any denying that He says that unemployment is decreasing, and, in the same breath, that imports are increasing, and they have a deleterious effect on employment. He cannot have it both ways even when arguing a thing of this kind. If you are going to argue that tariffs have increased employment and at the same time that imports of foreign manufactured goods have increased——

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: That seems to be the exact point at which I stopped the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. ROBERTS: I will leave that argument, though I should very much like to develop it. The object of the Clause seems to be that, if the Tariff Advisory Committee were given this instruction, they would be able to consider the effect on employment in the case of every duty or every restriction that they recommend. If they gave the fullest consideration to this fact every time they came to recommend a duty or a restriction, I wonder whether they would find themselves able to make very many. After all, the restriction of an import may mean a slight increase in one locality or in one trade, but inevitably it reduces employment in another. Hon. Members may think I am speaking without knowledge of the facts, but I have come to-day from Liverpool and have been in conversation in the train with men engaged in shipping and in im-
porting and exporting in that seaport. Their statements as to the effects of the duties upon employment in Liverpool were very remarkable. I know for a certain fact that there are far more people in that city to-day on public assistance than there were 12 months ago. The same complaint is made with regard to other trades. If you reduce imports, obviously, with the present state of financial difficulty with regard to exchange and other things, you are bound to restrict exports. You cannot expect them to go up; you cannot expect people to accept your goods unless they are able to pay for them. The United States is a good example of that.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman by how much the exports of the port of Liverpool have been reduced as a result of tariffs?

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: What I said was that employment had been reduced, and it is employment that we are considering in this Clause. I made the statement that unemployment had gone up there, and I believe that to be a true statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The figures will show.

Mr. DAVID REID: Could the hon. Gentleman quote to us the figures that were given this morning in the newspaper in the prospectus of the Mersey Docks Board in announcing the issue of new capital?

Mr. ROBERTS: I do not know the figures. All I know is that a member of the Financial Committee of the Liverpool Council, who ought to know what he is talking about, told me the other day that the amount the city of Liverpool had to find in additional rates for unemployment in the port of Liverpool ran into several thousands of pounds a week.

Mr. REMER: Is the hon. Member aware of the great imports of timber into the Mersey ports due to tariffs?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member appears to me to have gone completely away from the subject of the Amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS: I have done my very-best to keep to the point. As I said when I started, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not find it necessary to apply this indirect pressure through the Import Duties Advisory Com-
mittee, and that he will resist the Clause. I only wish that the scope of the Clause had been a little wider.

10.53 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I will not follow the hon. Gentleman—I should be out of order if I did so—at any length in his arguments on tariffs in general, but will merely deal with his main point that to reduce imports you must reduce exports. In the very brief period since the tariff has been introduced imports have been reduced in volume by something like 25 per cent. and exports show a considerable increase compared with the export position of the rest of the world.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: rose——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I observe that the hon. and gallant Member has not given way.

Sir H. CROFT: I desire to limit my remarks to the narrow but very vital point of employment and to say at once on behalf of a large number of supporters of the Government who have made a study of this question that in the inception of the tariff policy we felt that His Majesty's Government had imposed duties at such a level as not to give the best results to the employment of the people of this country. Our minds were all on the balance of trade and of the Budget. Now, however, in every quarter of the House we have come to the conclusion that the supreme issue of our day is the employment of our people. From that point of view we are justified on this occasion in endeavouring to stress this point above all others. It is quite incorrect to say that there is any endeavour by any of the hon. or right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken this evening to question the wisdom of the Advisory Committee in its dealings with any particular industry. That has not been suggested for a moment, and I hope that never in this House shall we hear from any quarter criticism of the Advisory Committee with regard to any industry, because that would lead us along paths which have been criticised in other countries and which everybody knows are unhealthy.
The point raised by my right hon. Friend is that the whole level of imports has suddenly remarkably increased, with the result that it has had very serious
potential disadvantages to the employment of the people of this country. Last year, I think I am right in saying, we imported £140,000,000 worth of manufactured goods in spite of the tariff representing the employment of some hundreds of thousands of our countrymen had we been able to deflect that manufacture to our own mills and factories. If you eliminate all the partial raw materials, oil, fats and metals, you will find that, even so, there was an employment capacity of £100,000,000 of exports coming into this country of manufactured goods. That being the case, we submit that our supreme consideration ought to be, how is our tariff being directed to the best advantage in the employment of our people? I desire to say this with all the emphasis that I can, because I know that it is felt by many in this House that Parliament did in fact fail in its duty at the time. I do not mean deliberately failed. We were acting in a very great hurry. Emergency legislation had to be passed through as we were running straight on to the rocks, and everybody knows that. Those measures were carried, and we all congratulate His Majesty's Government on the courage with which they acted, but it is possible that at that time we were not considering the ultimate bearing of the great question we are considering in this particular Clause.
Were we fair to the industrialists of this country? Were we fair to the country as a whole, and, above all, were we fair to the Advisory Committee when we gave that committee no real indication at what policy we were aiming? Surely, we ought to have told the Advisory Committee that we were out either for a protective tariff, or a revenue tariff, or a tariff which would give the greatest amount of employment to our people, always subject to the fact that it did not create worse effects on our industries, which might conceivably happen. It is because of that fact that we bring this Clause before the committee this evening. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give his very earnest consideration to this subject. There is alarm in many parts of the country to see that importers are riding over the tariff in so many directions. The increase in the first three months of this year compared with last
of one quarter must represent a very big employment figure to the people of this country. It is not only to-day that that increase is very alarming, but I think it will be admitted that the results may not be seen in full for some months.
If the tariff was adequate from the employment giving point of view two years ago, clearly it is not adequate to-day. If we can give this advice, as it is our duty to do in this House, to the Advisory Committee, that we desire above everything else that the general consideration shall be the employment of our people, I believe we shall be doing something for the country and really carrying out the views expressed on all benches. I beg the hon. Gentleman behind me to realise that there is no catch in the words which we desire to see inserted, but that we should have one supreme idea in the next several years in this country until we have solved this terrible problem, and that we should be actuated by a policy which will be the best for our fellow-men in the distress from which we are suffering at the present time.

11 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: The right hon. Gentleman opposite and his supporters, with great dexterity, have introduced the subject of imports and tariffs. I do not propose to follow them along that line of argument, except to say that the conclusions they have drawn from the figures regarding employment are not the conclusions which some of us would draw. More than that I need not say on that matter. I shall vote against the Clause for one simple reason. I ventured to raise a point of Order as to the relevancy of the proposed new Clause to the Finance Bill, and you gave your Ruling, which, of course, I accepted, but I still suggest that we must repudiate every effort made to raise discussion on this Finance Bill in relation to the functions of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. Let us have a frontal attack, if such an attack is to be made, and if we are to amend the Import Duties Act. Let it be done properly and formally in relation to that Act, but I submit that this is not the appropriate time to have a discussion upon that matter, and for that reason I shall vote against the proposed Clause.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that I shall be able to keep within the limit of your Ruling. The Clause which has been moved by my right hon. Friend raises the question of the connection between tariffs and employment. I cannot understand the position of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Aled Roberts) who does not seem to appreciate the fact that employment does not merely depend upon the value of goods consumed but upon their nature. You may very easily have a very considerable transfer of manufacture from the foreigner to this country which will not diminish the amount of imports which may be expressed in other kinds of goods but which may add very greatly to employment in this country. Apart from that consideration, I wish to examine the particular proposal of my right hon. Friend and, first of all, to consider the purpose of it.
I listened to my right hon. Friend very carefully and I noticed that he said the purpose of his Amendment was to remind the Import Duties Advisory Committee of their responsibilities. What are the responsibilities of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. Under Section 3 (2) of the Import Duties Act it is laid down that:
In deciding what recommendation, if any, to make for the purposes of this Section, the Committee shall have regard to the advisability in the national interest of restricting imports into the United Kingdom and the interests generally of trade and industry in the United Kingdom.
You cannot possibly have regard to the interests of trade and industry generally in the United Kingdom if you are at the same time to leave out considerations of employment. In fact, the words which my right hon. Friend desires to insert are really covered by the instructions which have already been given to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and I submit that if we were to insert the proposed words for the purpose of reminding the Committee of their responsibilities the implication must necessarily be that they require to be reminded what their responsibilities are. I wish to say that, in my judgment, they do not require reminding of those responsibilities, and that they are carrying them out to the best of their ability in the action which from time to time they are taking.
I am not denying for one moment that there has been a very considerable in-
crease in the imports into this country in the first four months of this year. I am not denying that that to some extent makes a new situation and one which will have to be very carefully watched. What I do say is that it seems to me that it is premature at least at this stage of the proceedings to put words into Section 3 (2) of the Import Duties Act which I cannot help thinking must imply a certain reflection upon the way in which the Committee has hitherto carried out its duties. Let us examine for a moment the present position in regard to employment. It is not the case that the increase of certain goods, manufactured or otherwise, has been accompanied by a corresponding diminution of employment. I have some figures and should like to give the Committee one or two instances. Take, for example, carpet making. There has been an increase in the imports of carpets during the first four months of this year as compared with the similar period last year of over 55 per cent., a very large and apparently serious increase, but at the same time there has been a decrease of unemployment in the carpet trade of nearly 6 per cent.

Sir B. PETO: Do I understand that in the view of the right hon. Gentleman the diminution of six per cent. in unemployment is due to the increase in imports of 55 per cent.?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I certainly do not intend to convey any such conclusion. What I was endeavouring to point put was that up to the present there had not been a decrease of employment, as might be inferred from the speech of the hon. and gallant Member. That is not an isolated case. Take iron and steel, one of the cases mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member, there has been an increase of 69 per cent. in the imports of iron and steel, but at the same time there has been a decrease in unemployment of nearly 18 per cent. These are facts, and the inference I draw is that it is premature to assume that the Import Duties Advisory Board is not having due regard to the question of employment. I can give other instances. Take nails, washers, bolts and nuts, there has been an increase of 117 per cent. in imports in the first four months, and a decrease of unemployment of 12.3 per cent.

Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: May I ask what deduction the right hon. Gentleman draws from these two sets of figures?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already answered that question. The deduction I draw is that it is premature to suppose that the Import Duties Advisory Committee is not paying attention to the question of employment and that there is no necessity to amend their terms of reference. I have something further to say. The Import Duties Advisory Committee is amending and adjusting the duties from time to time, and indeed in quite recent weeks there have been additions to duties in a number of cases, including iron and steel, glassware, typewriters and aluminium products. My suggestion to the Committee is, do not let us throw any sort of doubt upon the competence or desire of the Import Duties Advisory Committee to carry out what they have always conceived to be their duty—namely, to act in the interests of trade and industry generally. The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that the significance of the increase in imports is not lost upon them and that we may safely wait a little longer before thinking it necessary to amend their instructions or assume that they are not fully competent to carry out their duties with regard to employment in this country.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. D. MASON: I think we must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on an admirable speech. Really we rejoice at the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). The hon. Baronet seems to be distressed at the increase in imports. How does the hon. Baronet suggest that these imports are paid for?

Sir H. CROFT: If I answered the question I should be out of order, but I will say that the whole of that argument has gone by the board. My belief is that if we had kept out the manufactured goods that came into this country last year our employment figures would have been improved by something like 300,000.

Mr. MASON: Would the hon. Baronet tell us how those goods that came into this country were paid for? Obviously they were paid for by people abroad drawing from this country goods and services.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member had better not carry that argument too far on this Clause.

Mr. MASON: I think I may still keep within your Ruling if I show that those figures have had an effect on employment. Obviously the more we import from abroad the more we export, and the more employment there is here. It seems impossible to convince hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Chancellor may have partially convinced them. He has said that there has been an increase in these imports, but that it has not led to a decrease of employment, though a decrease of employment is what the new Clause is based upon. As the Chancellor has said, the test is employment, and by that test he will judge it. The Chancellor is confident that the Import Duties Advisory Committee will use their discretion, and he says that their instruction is to be guided by the amount of unemployment. We could not improve on the answer which the Chancellor has given. Experience in the past has shown us that when the imports into this country were greatest employment here was greatest.
But it is impossible to teach hon. Gentlemen opposite. What will convince the hon. Baronet? Does he want to stop all imports into this country? How in the name of common sense could we conduct foreign trade then? Does the hon. Baronet suggest that we should only export? Has he such an elementary knowledge of these matters as to suggest that our trade should be one-sided? He complains of these imports and I presume wishes to stop them. How is the trade of the country to be carried on, if we stop them? He mentioned various articles the imports of which he said affected employment in those particular trades, but we must have regard to the trade of the country as a whole, and we have the Chancellor's statement that unemployment is not increasing and that we are not coming to the parlous state contemplated by the hon. Baronet. We are entitled to be guided by the Chancellor's statement.

11.16 p.m.

Brigadier - General Sir WILLIAM ALEXANDER: I do not propose to make any comments on the remarks of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) except to say that I am sorry that his migration from the
West of Scotland to the South has not yet eliminated the brain-fog of Free Trade from his mind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Import Duties Advisory Committee, in their endeavour to provide employment, had performed their duties with competence. As a manufacturer and representing a large body of manufacturers, I desire to say that the manufacturers of this country are satisfied generally with the work of the Advisory Committee. One thing which manufacturers have received from the committee is security over a certain period, in their respective industries. When the committee makes a decision, after careful consideration, in which the manufacturers receive nothing more on balance than the fair turn of the scales in their favour, they are sure of security for some time to come. I have no "grouse" against the Import Duties Advisory Committee and a very large proportion of the increased imports of manufactured goods in the first three months of the year has been due not to any action of the Committee hut to the queering of the Committee's pitch by the Board of Trade. Decisions made without consultation with industry and inefficiency in use of bargaining power have brought things to a position in which we cannot expect anything else except serious competition from oversea nations. In view of what I am going to say, I would like to justify my position. I am going to deal with one or two articles and I think I can enlighten hon. Members as to some of the trade agreements and their influence upon employment. I spoke very strongly against the German trade agreement——

The CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. and gallant Member is not proposing to discuss the trade agreements. I do not object to a reference to them, as far as he has gone already, but I must draw the line somewhere.

Sir W. ALEXANDER: I shall try to keep within the ambit of the proposed new Clause. A number of articles which are being imported into this country, and which can very well be manufactured here and would provide employment here, have, owing to the reduction of duties below those recommended by the Advisory Committee, caused increased importations from the Continent to a very large extent, and in the particular in-
dustries to which I refer the products concerned are absolutely vital to this country in the case of emergency or war. Some of those articles were so vital in past days that we had to expend millions of money in erecting plant in Canada, France, and America for the production of those goods Plants were erected also in this country which have since been scrapped. Private enterprise since the War has built up, at the expense of millions of money, production capacity for those vital elements, and yet we find to-day these plants working at 30 per cent. of capacity, and foreign countries, on account of the benefits that we have given to them on those vital products of war, are importing into this country 40 per cent. of the consumption of this country.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. and gallant Member to continue on this line. He seems to be arguing on the question of national interest. This Clause does not proper to alter the words "national interest" at all.

Sir W. ALEXANDER: I will only say that it would be to the benefit of the industries and employment of this country if political elements were eliminated from the discussion of these serious industrial problems, and if the Government would take into consideration what the Advisory Committee recommend and bring into the picture the benefit of the commercial brains of this country for the good of employment.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: I wish to say a word in reference to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said. The object of the proposed new Clause was certainly not to find any fault with the methods or procedure of the Advisory Committee. I think this Committee is satisfied with the methods adopted, and I think the business world generally has been satisfied as to the complete fairness of the Advisory Committee's actions. The object was in order, within the limits of your Ruling, to draw attention to a serious situation of a general character which may require action more prompt and more comprehensive than that which in the normal course of events the Advisory Committee might take. The limits of the Ruling which your predecessor in the Chair has given has made it difficult to say much on this question, but we have been able to say something about the
seriousness of a situation, which has not yet reflected itself in any increasing unemployment figures, but which we believe, if it continues and is not promptly dealt with, may either lead to an increase of unemployment or at any rate to a check in that salutary and, admirable reduction of unemployment which we have witnessed during the last 18 months, and which is so serious and important if the Government are to justify themselves.
I will close with one reference to what the Chancellor himself said in his speech on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, when he pointed out that we are not likely in any future that we can foresee to see a return of international trade on a level such as we have known even in comparatively recent years. Our main hope, he declared, lies in the development of Empire trade and in the strengthening of the home market; and in relation to that home market he pointed out that he by no means regarded the limit of expansion of employment had been reached. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has assured the Committee that this situations is being watched by His Majesty's Government and that he is not unalive to the seriousness of the implications of the figures, even if they have not been reflected in increased unemployment in particular industries, I do not wish to press the Amendment to a division. I would only express the hope that the Government will give the closest attention to this matter and will convey to the Advisory Committee the general seriousness of this situation and the need of prompt and comprehensive action. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Hon. MEMBERS: No!

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, arid negatived.

NEW CLAUSE —(Sur-tax deduction in respect of payments in respect of mineral rights duty.)

Where for any year of assessment rights to work minerals in the United Kingdom are let a deduction shall be allowed in the computation of the lessor's income for the purposes of Sur-tax equal to the amount which shall be proved to have been disbursed by him in payment of mineral rights duty in respect of that year.—[Mr. Amery.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause and the next in my name—"Surtax deduction in respect of payments in respect of miners' welfare levy"—raise in substance precisely the same point, and the same argument will be sufficient to cover both. The point is that as the law stands at present a mineral royalty owner has to pay in taxation first of all Income Tax on the gross royalties received by him, subject only to certain allowances. He then has to pay Mineral Rights Duty and miners' welfare levy at the rate, each, of 1s. in the pound, on the gross royalties, less Income Tax, and finally he has to pay Sur-tax on the gross total of the royalties. The result is that the royalty owner is taxed on the income he actually receives on a higher scale than any other receiver of income in the country. To take a concrete illustration, a royalty owner paying Sur-tax on the highest scale would, on £1,000 received as royalties, pay £225 in Income Tax, £77 10s. in Mineral Rights Duty and miners' welfare levy and £412 10s. in Surtax, making £715 in all, which is a tax of 14s. 2d. in the pound and £32 more than any other person in the same financial position would pay. That seems to me to amount to a case of real unfairness.
I could argue, and there would be a good deal to be said for the argument, that royalties should not be subject either to full Income Tax or Surtax on their nominal amount, because they are not merely income but are in a large measure a payment by instalments of capital values, because when a mine is exhausted the source of the income disappears entirely. However, I do not wish to stress that point, but only to show that at present the royalty owner has to pay Surtax on income which never comes within his purview. The mineral rights duty is the only one of the Land Taxes of 1909 which is left on—the others were abolished in 1920—and the miners' welfare levy was imposed in 1926 at a time when the industry was in great financial difficulties and could, therefore, be imposed only on the royalty owners. Both these substantial imposts levied on the royalty owners alone, are in themselves a sufficient additional burden of taxation
without constituting a justification for further taxation on income which the royalty owner never receives.
I suggest that the least that should be done to remedy the unfairness is that the royalty owner should not pay Surtax on the money which he has to pay out for Mineral Rights Duty or the Miners' Welfare Levy; to that small extent, at any rate, he might be relieved. An alternative proposition might be to do what is already done in respect of Income Tax, and not to levy for the miners' welfare fund or the Mineral Rights Duty until Surtax as well as Income Tax has been deducted from the gross royalty income. Anyhow here is a real injustice which needs remedying in one way or another. This is not a request for a large sacrifice of revenue on the part of the Treasury. Taking the total amount of royalty income at some £5,000,000, and it is considerably less than that at the present time—about £500,000 less, it used to average some £6,000,000—and taking the average rate of Surtax at 7s. in the pound, which is again a high figure, and having regard to the fact that neither the Ecclesiastical Commissioners nor the Commissioners of Crown Lands pay Surtax, though both are large owners of royalties—taking all those figures the total loss of revenue would work out at £75,000. I agree that one is not entitled lightly to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to forego even that amount of revenue in the present difficult situation, but it is fair to suggest that even that amount of revenue ought not to be levied, when it involves an unfair discrimination against one sec-ton of the community, by levying taxation on them at a rate at which it is not levied upon anyone else.

11.36 p.m.

Lord APSLEY: I support the Clause moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). There must have been an oversight of the Treasury, because these taxes were not intended to bear upon these people to the extent that they do. That they should pay Income Tax and Surtax on their gross amount, without allowing for Mineral Rights Duty and miners' welfare levy to be deducted, is hardly an equitable form of taxation. Hon. Members of the Opposition will admit that
all taxation is based on consent and that all consent is based on equity. If you do not have equity, consent becomes correspondingly diminished and takes expression either in evasion, with a corresponding war carried on by the Treasury to prevent the increase of the invasion, or in some remote and possibly quite obscure issue, such as "ship-money," which was merely the last straw that broke the camel's back, and the culmination of a long and iniquitous series of forced loans, benevolences and other forms of extracting money from the taxpayer, which had been initiated by that famous Socialist Stafford—[Interruption]—I should have said Strafford. No hon. Member will wish that to occur. It can occur, as it has in many other countries, and even in our Dominions, as an inevitable result of this matter of equity. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will receive this plea with that sympathy with which, as a good-natured, fair and generous-minded man, he must naturally receive it.
The question of whether mineral royalties are right or wrong is not in order. If Opposition hon. Members wish to discuss it, that is a matter for the Chair to decide upon. I will give them a trial fling, if they wish it. The reason for private owners possessing mineral royalties, and the question whether the royalties should be Government-owned, is a far wider subject. I wonder whether some hon. Members will cite the instance of oil, and the recent legislation, as an example of the State-ownership on which the ultimate aims of the Labour party are based. If that be the case, my answer——

The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is now going far too wide.

Lord APSLEY: I bow to your Ruling. I understand that the broad question as to whether mineral royalties and rights are to be owned by the private individual is not in order in this Debate. If there were no privately-owned mineral royalties, their could be no Royalty Duty; if their were no Royalty Duty there could be no exemptions from Surtax to the royalty owner. I base my plea entirely on the question of equity, on which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be sympathetic.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My Noble Friend suggests that it was owing to some oversight on the part of the Treasury that exemption from Surtax in this case had not been granted long ago, but there is no question of any oversight on the part of the Treasury. Indeed, the intention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was that there should be no deduction for Income Tax in charging Mineral Eights Duty, but there was some flaw in the Statute, and in 1913 a case was decided in the courts with the result that since then Income Tax has been allowed. The same, judgment laid it down that a deduction for Surtax was not allowable. However much I sympathise with those unfortunate fellow-subjects of ours who are not only royalty owners but are also subject to Surtax, I am afraid I must not listen to the mellifluous accents of my Noble Friend, because to deal with this matter would be contrary to the principle which I have laid down, and which continues to guide me on matters connected with the Budget, that the sacrifices and burdens imposed in 1931 must have the first consideration. Therefore, I am obliged to say that the royalty owners must possess their souls in patience until those matters are disposed of, when it may be possible to consider their, no doubt, well founded claims.

11.42 p.m.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I wondered, after hearing the Chancellor's remarks, whether he fully appreciated what has happened in connection with the collection of Surtax on incomes derived from minerals. When the Mineral Rights Duty was first imposed, Surtax was relatively small; I think they were both introduced in the same year, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) has said, the Mineral Rights Duty is the last survivor of the "People's Budget" of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boronghs (Mr. Lloyd George), which was designed to bring about all kinds of results which it failed to achieve. It was then a tax levied on the mineral income received. We had subsequently another survivor of all kinds of recommendations—the Miners' Welfare Duty, which is the sole
survivor of the recommendations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) in his Report on the Coal Industry. Both of these taxes have worked well, and neither could well be described as unfair, but the mineral owner receives from his lessee, not the 20s. with which he is credited, but 18s. He can never get more; 2s. is deducted at the source. But he has to pay Surtax on 20s., and I think my right hon. Friend must agree that that is rather less than fair.
Many mineral owners are mulct in other ways. For instance, machinery has been introduced in the pits to a very large extent, with the result that particular districts are being intensively developed, while others are not. I know of cases where an owner who may have paid Death Duties on colliery royalties based on the old system of working is now getting no income, but is still having to pay the full rate of interest on money borrowed to pay his Death Duties. There is a hardship, and there is something of a hardship in being credited with income enormously larger than you are actually receiving. A mineral owner is credited in the district in which he lives with his gross income. The ordinary miner knows very little about Income Tax or Surtax, or Mineral Rights Duty, or the Miners' Welfare Levy. He believes the royalty owner is getting 20s. in the pound. He believes he is a man of limitless wealth. He knows nothing at all of the fact that his actual income is not 20s. in the pound, but that what he draws from the pits is something more nearly approaching 5s. 6d. in the pound.
The Mineral Rights Duty is a fair tax, and the Miners Welfare Duty has done so much good in the industry that, speaking as one who pays it, I should not be prepared, until things improve very much indeed, to move for a reduction of that tax, but, even so, I believe that taxation ought to be on a fair basis, and it is wrong to tax a man on 20s. in the pound when he is actually receiving not more than 18s. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter and, if he cannot make a concession this year, will bear it in mind for a remission of taxation next year. It will cost him very little, but I believe it is wrong to tax people on an income which they can never hope to receive.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I rise to ask if this new Clause is exactly in order. Is not the proper place for this to be dealt with under Part II of the Unemployment Insurance Act? It is evident that a number of these people are likely to come on the fund and will have to receive consideration from those administering Part II of that Act.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. SPENS: I believe this is the only anomalous double taxation in connection with the Surtax that exists. I appreciate that this year nothing can be done to relieve the injustice. At the same time, while of course we appreciate that Surtax is leviable on the amount to which one was assessed to Income Tax in the year before, and although one has to pay Surtax on that part of one's income which has to go to public purposes, such as rates and so forth, as far as I know, there is no other case where one has to pay Surtax on money that is directly due to the Exchequer under another direct tax. I believe it is an anomaly. The position is that, whereas you are assessed to Income Tax on your gross royalties, out of which you have to pay directly the Mineral Rights Duty to the Exchequer, none the less the following year you have to pay Surtax on the full amount, including that which you have had to pay directly to the Exchequer as Mineral Rights Duty. Of course, in one sense one has to pay Surtax on that part of one's income which one does not receive because of the Income Tax deducted at the source, but Surtax is an additional Income Tax and one cannot complain about that. It is an additional Income Tax on your gross income. The point I am trying to make is that where you come to deal with Surtax on Mineral Rights Duty you do in fact include in your gross income this direct taxation to the Exchequer under this old piece of legislation of 1909, which I agree was intended to be even more severe than it is at the present moment, but I submit that this is an anomaly which ought to be reconsidered at the earliest possible moment.

11.52 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I am not concerned so much with whether payment is made on 20s. or 18s., but when the Noble Lord says that the ordinary miner knows nothing about Income Tax, I must reply
respectfully that he does not understand the miners as well as some of us do. Before the Chancellor of the Exchequer removes any anomalies as far as mineral royalties are concerned, I hope that he will remove anomalies which concern the ordinary mine worker. I was in a colliery office some days ago, and the wages on the colliery books showed that the men had taken home that day 16s. 3d. and that for ordinary Income Tax purposes 16s. 3d. would be sent in to the Inspector. Actually the men had taken 13s. 9d. home, and they had left at the pit in stoppages of various kinds between 2s. 6d. and 2s. 9d. per shift upon which they were assessed for Income Tax. When we have had dealings with the local Inspector on matters of this kind, we have been told that the gross earnings of the men—the wages in the colliery book—are the wages which have to be taken into account for Income Tax purposes. Even though there may be anomalies from the mining royalty owners' point of view, there are also a great many anomalies from the point of view of the miners. Before the right hon. Gentleman removes the anomalies that my Noble Friend is pleading with him to remove, I hope that he will remove those which affect the ordinary worker.

Question "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE —(Amendment as, to stamp duty on loan capital.)

For the purpose of section eight of the Finance Act, 1899 (which provides for the payment of stamp duty in respect of the issue of loan capital), the expression "loan capital" shall not include any loan capital which is of euch a description as to be incapable of being dealt in on a stock exchange in the United Kingdom.—[Sir S. Roberts.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.53 p.m.

Sir S. ROBERTS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It is a growing practice among groups of companies for one member of the group to lend money to other members without security and repayable on demand. The money is thus moved about from company to company where it may be used more profitably. It therefore appears to be desirable that anything which, by reason of its doubtful application, would
tend to hamper such commendable movement within a family group should be avoided. Doubts have arisen on the interpretation of this Act, and the new Clause is intended to clear the matter up. Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1899, will not be in any way interfered with, because the Exchequer will still continue to draw duty as heretofore from the sources for which the Section was enacted. I therefore do not think that the Clause is against any of the canons of the Chancellor, and I ask him to accept it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am very happy to accept my hon. Friend's Clause.

Sir S. ROBERTS: I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

Clause added to the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lennox-Boyd.

Mr. D. MASON: On a point of Order. I suppose you have passed over the new Clause which I have put down to provide for the setting up of a Committee of Inquiry on monetary policy?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, it has not been selected.

Mr. MASON: Can you give me any guidance with regard to it?

The CHAIRMAN: It has not been selected, and I can say no more about it.

NEW CLAUSE —(Rebate of the excise duty on home-grown sugar used in confectionery and sweetened milk products.)

In respect of all home-grown sugar used in the manufacture of confectionery and sweetened milk products the manufacturers thereof shall be granted a rebate equal to one-half the duty payable thereon.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of the Clause is to provide an opportunity of encouraging the manufacture in this country of condensed and sweetened milk products; and at the same time to do something to provide
for utilising the surplus milk from the milk farms of England. The result of the Clause will be that where home-grown sugar is used in the manufacture of condensed milk products, the manufacturer shall be granted a rebate equal to one-half of the Excise Duty on home-grown sugar the main rate of which is 5s. 10d. per cwt. Under the Import Duties Act a duty of 10 per cent. is imposed on all goods other than those on the Free List which were not already subject to a duty under another enactment. Therefore, in general, the Import Duties Advisory Committee are unable to deal with any goods already dutiable, and they are unable to deal with goods containing sugar. But under Section 8 of the Import Duties Act there is a provision in connection with composite goods, that is, goods consisting partly of dutiable and partly of non-dutiable goods. The Committee is free to deal with such goods, and under the Eighteenth Order made under the Import Duties Act a measure of protection has been extended to many articles containing sugar which, prior to the coming into force of this Enactment in September of last year, were only subject to a revenue duty. But where the revenue duty on composite articles exceeds 10 per cent. of the whole value of the article the Import Duties Advisory Committee can take no action. As a result, skimmed condensed milk imports into this country, which reached very considerable figures indeed, cannot be dealt with, because the sugar content duty already exceeds 10 per cent. of the total value of the commodity imported. It is a matter of very serious consideration not only to the manufacturer of skimmed condensed milk in this country, but still more to the home dairy farmer, that something should be done to deal with this anomaly.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will, if he cannot on this particular occasion give them friendly consideration, bear in mind the arguments I have tried to advance. The imports last year of skimmed condensed milk approximated to. the figure of some 2,000,000 cwt. They are equal, I believe, to the milk imports of some 120,000 cows, and represent the equivalent of some 70,000,000 gallons of fresh milk every year. Those of us who are very much concerned with the difficulties confronting the Milk Marketing Board hope that some such Clause as this
may be inserted in some future Finance Bill. It is clear that the bulk of the competition to-day comes from the Netherlands, and, as my right hon. Friend will be aware, an Act was passed last year in the Netherlands—the Nether-land Crisis Dairy Act—by which a levy is raised on butter in the Netherlands in order to subsidise milk used for manufacture. In this country at the moment we are at a severe disadvantage in having to meet the competition of subsidised condensed milk from the Netherlands, and, as a result, not only is our home agriculture jeopardised, but the manufacture of condensed milk in this country is put under a grievous handicap.

12 m.

Mr. HORE-BELLSHA: I congratulate the hon. Member on the brevity and conciseness with which he has moved the new Clause. The effect of it would be to give British manufacturers of confectionery and sweetened milk products who use home grown sugar a rebate of half the duty paid thereon. The loss to the Exchequer would of course be considerable; at a rough guess it would not be less than a sum of six figures. The question arises as to whether the concession should be confined to makers of confectionery and sweetened milk products. There are other important users of sugar, jam makers, biscuit makers, but in any event my hon. Friend
is aware that the home grown sugar industry is now being investigated by a special committee, and perhaps he will agree that nothing should be done in the way of piecemeal relief. I hope he will not think me discourteous if I do not give him a fuller reply, but the elements of a full answer are in what I have said.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: After the explanation of the Financial Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the. Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Four Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.